Warrantless Search
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson May 02, 2013 4:22 PM EDT |
Keep in mind, this is not about access to data specified in a warrant. This is about warrantless searches and seizure of data. http://tinyurl.com/c8zw2pu "The Obama administration wants legislation enacted that will punish Internet service providers who fail to cooperate with FBI requests and court orders. The FBI has revealed that its agents often "lack the time" to obtain search warrants, and so they have gotten into the bad habit of asking Internet service providers to let them in without warrants." |
| DrGeoffrey May 02, 2013 4:45 PM EDT |
And another civil right continues to be ignored by the U.S. government. Wish we could blame one party. . . I wonder if Tor would help? |
| djohnston May 02, 2013 5:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:I wonder if Tor would help? You should read this (long and detailed analysis) and this (short and to the point). The point being, "The moral of the story is that you shouldn’t use TOR for the purposes of secure communications. You should be using TOR to anonymize routing. If you are passing indentifiable information over the wire that you don’t want read, such as your email or bank information, you need to use a secure end-to-end encrypted channel, like ssh, https, or ssl-imap. What TOR provides is a mechanism for anonymizing the routing of your communications so that people in your routing path don’t know who you’re sending a message to." An alternative internet is the only way to avoid government snooping of the massive scale we're seeing now and into the future. That requires building of wireless mesh network infrastructures. Something like this for the infrastructure. As the (long and detailed analysis) states, "So, you want to be anonymous in a world that was thought up by the U.S. Department of Defense?" |
| DrGeoffrey May 02, 2013 5:35 PM EDT |
Quoting: "So, you want to be anonymous in a world that was thought up by the U.S. Department of Defense?" Hmmm, yes. My question was a non sequitur. |
| gary_newell May 03, 2013 3:39 AM EDT |
The annoying thing is that the US has no right to govern or monitor me. I am a UK citizen. We have our own set of meglomaniacs to worry about. |
| r_a_trip May 03, 2013 3:56 AM EDT |
gary_newell, that is an awfully brazen thing to say for an inhabitant of Airstrip One. Don't let Miniluv get wind of it. |
| caitlyn May 03, 2013 10:45 PM EDT |
I take this article with a grain... no a boulder of salt. It's a Fox News analyst attacking the Obama administration for doing precisely what the Bush administration did. The reason I don't believe a word here is because to link to the purported legislation is provided. No name or number for the bill is given, if it exists at all. If there really was such a proposal which was now in the form of a House or Senate bill a number would be assigned to it and it would be in the public record. It would also be available in full on the web. Without providing this information I read this as a political attack piece and nothing more. |
| Bob_Robertson May 06, 2013 8:50 AM EDT |
Caitlyn, Since it's very unlikely that you would have seen him before, Nepolitano was attacking the Bush administration for doing the same thing when they were doing it. I can understand why you would think it's "a political attack piece and nothing more" without knowing the history. If you care to check, you will hear where Nepolitano specifically points out that the Bush administration was doing exactly the same thing, and he notes that it was the Bush FBI that set the standard, began the trend, got in the habit, whatever particular way he puts it I can't remember. So no. It's not "a political attack piece" unless you would call it that because it attacks the over-reach of political power _itself_. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!