Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Fri 24 Oct 2014, 16:43
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Off-Topic Area » Security
Does DHS really have a list of "trigger" words? [Solved]
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
Page 1 of 2 Posts_count   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Thu 01 Apr 2010, 18:17    Post_subject:  Does DHS really have a list of "trigger" words? [Solved]  

Take these rumors about Homeland Security having list of words that trigger investigations and tapping the phone of the person using the suspect words.

I have installed AntiX on my hdd.

Yes I know it is a very naive question and I do apology to all admirers and supporters of the coming Revolution.

But is it not a sure thing that if a Debian OS derivative get named after anti capitalist heroes and famous communists and anarchists and so on that they just have to install some thing by brute force into my computer. That is their job or work description. Tap anybody using the code words for being an enemy to the Homeland.

To me it is just a well working distro but to the Homeland Security it most likely get them firing on all engines?

Could someone having deep insight on these matters give a likely scenario? Will they realize me is only a user of an OS and not a Revolutionary planning nasty things against them?

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

Edited_time_total
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
disciple

Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 6449
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu 01 Apr 2010, 21:14    Post_subject:  

I think as Linux people we generally have more reason to fear the government because we believe in "right-wing" things like freedom, not because we are leftists Smile
_________________
DEATH TO SPREADSHEETS
- - -
Classic Puppy quotes
- - -
Beware the demented serfers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
DMcCunney

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 897

PostPosted: Thu 01 Apr 2010, 22:04    Post_subject: Re: Naive Newbie question about "Security"!  

nooby wrote:
Could someone having deep insight on these matters give a likely scenario? Will they realize me is only a user of an OS and not a Revolutionary planning nasty things against them?

I see this sort of thing from the Tin Foil Hat crowd over here in the US, who think Microsoft is in league with the NSA, and has left back doors in Windows so the NSA can snoop on their PCs. All I can say is "You wish you were important enough that anyone could be bothered to snoop on your computer!" They aren't. They aren't important, they don't matter, and nobody cares what they think.

The same applies to you. Homeland Security doesn't know who you are, you don't matter to them, and they don't care what you think or what Linux distribution you use. Why should they? Their charter is insuring the security of the United States. The people outside the US borders they'll take an interest in live in places like the Middle East and have suspected ties to outfits like Al-Queda. A middle-aged guy in Sweden tinkering with Linux won't be seen as a threat or even noticed.
______
Dennis
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Flash
Official Dog Handler


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 11121
Location: Arizona USA

PostPosted: Thu 01 Apr 2010, 22:27    Post_subject:  

disciple wrote:
I think as Linux people we generally have more reason to fear the government because we believe in "right-wing" things like freedom, not because we are leftists Smile

Another thing the "right-wing" apparently believes is that it is perfectly acceptable to destroy a nation, indeed the entire Earth, in a devil-take-the-hindmost race to get rich. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
KF6SNJ

Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Posts: 698
Location: Distressed States of Amerika

PostPosted: Fri 02 Apr 2010, 01:21    Post_subject:  

Flash wrote:
disciple wrote:
I think as Linux people we generally have more reason to fear the government because we believe in "right-wing" things like freedom, not because we are leftists :)

Another thing the "right-wing" apparently believes is that it is perfectly acceptable to destroy a nation, indeed the entire Earth, in a devil-take-the-hindmost race to get rich. :lol:


And of course the left seems to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to destroy the nation by forcing an overbloated socialist government that our taxes can't possible support down our throats.

_________________
The only windows I have are those on my home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website YIM 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2261

PostPosted: Fri 02 Apr 2010, 04:20    Post_subject:  

I sincerely doubt that the majority of Linux users are right-wingers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Fri 02 Apr 2010, 04:56    Post_subject:  

Well my Dad was a Revolutionary Communist supporters so who knows they could still have me as the son of such on the list. Smile

Freedom is high on both far Right and far Left. Maybe they mean different things with it. I try to stay outside of all politics.

I trust me is not important enough then.

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
bugman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons

PostPosted: Fri 02 Apr 2010, 06:54    Post_subject:  

actually there are plenty of right-wing linux users

[any excuse to save a buck, they need more bullets]

even though i would argue that individualism and a community-based system are philosophically at odds

but then the right does have its issues with hypocrisy . . .

_________________
. . . the machines are clean
and the machines are not corrupted


- lee "scratch" perry
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
DMcCunney

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 897

PostPosted: Fri 02 Apr 2010, 15:01    Post_subject:  

nooby wrote:
Well my Dad was a Revolutionary Communist supporters so who knows they could still have me as the son of such on the list. Smile

Who does? Since you're not a US citizen, the US government is unlikely to. I don't think Communism is very high on their threat list these days, especially since the places most gung ho about it like the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are all trying to move away from it as fast as they can. (Possibly because they discovered the hard way it doesn't work as expected...)

Quote:
Freedom is high on both far Right and far Left. Maybe they mean different things with it.

Probably. A lot of what both sides are talking about when they say "freedom" isn't "freedom to", it's "freedom from"

The lead character in Jules Fieffer's play "Little Murders" is an example. He's demanding more more police, more surveillance cameras..."This is my freedom I'm talking about!", he wails. And indeed it is: for him it's freedom from fear, and being able to go out without worrying about being robbed and possibly killed. (The play was written during a time of racial unrest.)

Quote:
I try to stay outside of all politics.

Sensible.

Quote:
I trust me is not important enough then.

No, you aren't. Why should you be? You're in no position to affect the actions of the US one way or the other. They don't know you exist, and have no reason to care.
______
Dennis
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
DMcCunney

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 897

PostPosted: Fri 02 Apr 2010, 15:44    Post_subject:  

bugman wrote:
actually there are plenty of right-wing linux users

[any excuse to save a buck, they need more bullets]

I'm afraid that's a rather simple-minded view of the right. It's also a rather simple-minded view of Linux, if you assume that "it's free of charge" is the main reason it gets used. Linux on a desktop is normally living alongside or replacing the OS bundles with the machine, which was already paid for as part of the cost of the box.

Linux on a server gets run because it's better than the alternatives, and often has a cost because the organizations that run it pay for support contracts from people like Red Hat.

The monetary cost of the OS is probably the smallest part of the cost of owning and using the machine.

Quote:
even though i would argue that individualism and a community-based system are philosophically at odds

Not really. Any time you have people living together in groups, you have a community, whether the dominant culture is individualistic or otherwise. The arguments come over what is expected from each side.

Quote:
but then the right does have its issues with hypocrisy ...

Why should they differ from anyone else? They don't have a monopoly on that particular failing.
______
Dennis
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15117
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr 2010, 00:37    Post_subject:  

Lobster is a trigger word Shocked
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/

I'll see if I can do some worrying about nothing for you
rather than wasting my time meditating on Nothing . . . Embarassed

_________________
Puppy WIKI
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
bugman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr 2010, 06:54    Post_subject:  

DMcCunney wrote:
Quote:
but then the right does have its issues with hypocrisy ...

Why should they differ from anyone else? They don't have a monopoly on that particular failing.


maybe, i wouldn't know as i live in a country that seems to have lost its left wing

the center runs the place forever [slight shifts every 8 years or so], the right gets all the press [teabaggers of both sorts]

_________________
. . . the machines are clean
and the machines are not corrupted


- lee "scratch" perry
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
DMcCunney

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 897

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr 2010, 10:48    Post_subject:  

bugman wrote:
DMcCunney wrote:
Quote:
but then the right does have its issues with hypocrisy ...

Why should they differ from anyone else? They don't have a monopoly on that particular failing.

maybe, i wouldn't know as i live in a country that seems to have lost its left wing

It's quite time to take your head out of the bucket. The left is alive and kicking.

Quote:
the center runs the place forever [slight shifts every 8 years or so], the right gets all the press [teabaggers of both sorts]

Ultimately, the center will run things. There are shift in one direction or the other, but it's a bit like a pendulum. It swings back.

Whether the right gets all the press depends upon what press you read.
______
Dennis
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
TheAsterisk!


Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 403
Location: SE Wisconsin, US

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr 2010, 13:48    Post_subject:  

Right and left? Really?
Those are terribly inaccurate, even useless terms. Think about it.
An anarchist, invariably a supposedly leftist position, and a Libertarian, who would colloquially be referred to as right-wing, aren't that different. The anarchist just goes all-out.
Similarly, on the other end of the spectrum of power and control, communists and fascists are no different in practice, but are somehow supposed to be diametrically opposed, if you go by "left" and "right."

You can't conduct a clear debate with unclear language, and describing political philosophies with turn signals is nothing if not unclear and lacking language.
Four alternative terms work much better: authoritarian, libertarian (though the connotation might make a related term- work from "liberty"- more desirable), radical (promote change from current setting), conservative (preserve current setting), and moderate (somewhere between or based in compromise).
Similarly, I would argue that "fundamentalist" and "extremist" aren't necessarily bad terms. After all, if I refuse to compromise on my rightful freedoms, am I not an extremist, by definition?



@Bugman: Tin-hat classical liberals- like myself- are not out purely for individualism in the sense of isolation in wilderness or becoming hermits. We don't like centralized power, be that power held by government, social groups or corporations (I suppose I should include individuals, but they tend to draw power directly from association with one of the above).

Linux has a comparative lack of such central authority, and as a result I may retain (or feel like I retain) a greater measure of autonomy.
Certainly, it's a community, but it can't tell me what I may or may not do to the same extent a proprietary OS can, and several common copyright licences even guarantee me a measure of freedom rarelt found elsewhere.



As for the two opposed parties, which are more like competing snack-cake brands than determinants of political philosophy, both are authoritarian, though they justify their power grabs with different colors of bullcrap, and both seem to have a stunning disregard for the longevity and the stability of the states over which they preside.
All the politicians are to be distrusted, scorned and scrutinized. These are people who have openly admitted they'd like to tell others what to do, to have the power to wage war, etc. Be wary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
DMcCunney

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 897

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr 2010, 21:49    Post_subject:  

TheAsterisk! wrote:
Right and left? Really?
Those are terribly inaccurate, even useless terms. Think about it.
An anarchist, invariably a supposedly leftist position, and a Libertarian, who would colloquially be referred to as right-wing, aren't that different. The anarchist just goes all-out.

You can view it as a circle, rather than a line. Take the line, coil it into a circle, and you may find th3 far left and far right ends do a good job of meeting.

Quote:
Similarly, on the other end of the spectrum of power and control, communists and fascists are no different in practice, but are somehow supposed to be diametrically opposed, if you go by "left" and "right."

One definition to use begins with what their power base is. The communists appealed to the working class. "Right wing" dictatorships and oligarchies are presumed to be the province of the wealthy. One thing that distinguished Fascism and is usually forgotten is that it was a middle class movement. The supporters equally distrusted the rich and the poor.

Quote:
You can't conduct a clear debate with unclear language, and describing political philosophies with turn signals is nothing if not unclear and lacking language.
Four alternative terms work much better: authoritarian, libertarian (though the connotation might make a related term- work from "liberty"- more desirable), radical (promote change from current setting), conservative (preserve current setting), and moderate (somewhere between or based in compromise).

They're useful terms, but need more context to be useful, "Authoritarian", for example, can be applied equally well to various groups on both the left and right. So can "moderate".

Quote:
Similarly, I would argue that "fundamentalist" and "extremist" aren't necessarily bad terms. After all, if I refuse to compromise on my rightful freedoms, am I not an extremist, by definition?

I suspect that will depend upon what you consider your "rightful" freedoms, and whether the person you're talking to agrees with your opinion.

Quote:
@Bugman: Tin-hat classical liberals- like myself- are not out purely for individualism in the sense of isolation in wilderness or becoming hermits. We don't like centralized power, be that power held by government, social groups or corporations (I suppose I should include individuals, but they tend to draw power directly from association with one of the above).

Unfortunately, centralized power is more or less inevitable in any sufficiently complex society. The question is where it's centralized (and there will be more than one center, as there will be various types of power), and what checks and balances are in place to limit its growth and circumscribe it's actions.

Quote:
Linux has a comparative lack of such central authority, and as a result I may retain (or feel like I retain) a greater measure of autonomy.
Certainly, it's a community, but it can't tell me what I may or may not do to the same extent a proprietary OS can, and several common copyright licences even guarantee me a measure of freedom rarely found elsewhere.

And even that needs to be more precisely defined. Properly speaking, Linux is the OS kernel. There's a central authority there, in that Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of what goes into a released kernel. But "May the best code win" is firmly ingrained in the culture, and Linus has allowed himself to be overruled by the community when a solution is demonstrated to be better than the one he proposed.

Most folks tend to use Linux to refer to the kernel and all the other stuff present in a distro, but that's not really accurate. Most distros are called Gnu/Linux distros because most of the other stuff like the standard utilities and application packages are provided under the GPL, but a system can use little or none of them and still be a Linux system. My Linksys router, for example, uses firmware based on a Linux 2.4 kernel. It uses Busybox to provide a subset of the standard utilities, but unless you happen to install third-party firmware based on the original stock code, you never see that, and may not know it's a Linux system at all.

Quote:
As for the two opposed parties, which are more like competing snack-cake brands than determinants of political philosophy, both are authoritarian, though they justify their power grabs with different colors of bullcrap, and both seem to have a stunning disregard for the longevity and the stability of the states over which they preside.

One thing to keep in mind is that politicians of either variety are elected officials, and have a single over riding goal: to get reelected. Their time horizon is defined by the next election, and their attitude on issues is governed by what they think their constituents want.

When presented with an issue, they'll tend to have one of three responses:

1) My constituents will like it. It will get me votes! I'm in favor.

2) My constituents won't like it. It will cost me votes. I'm against it.

3) My constituents won't care one way or the other. So I'm willing to do a deal. My support on what you want in exchange for your support on this thing I'm after.

The last is where the work gets done.

Quote:
All the politicians are to be distrusted, scorned and scrutinized. These are people who have openly admitted they'd like to tell others what to do, to have the power to wage war, etc. Be wary.

Yes.
______
Dennis
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Display_posts:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 2 Posts_count   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
 Forum index » Off-Topic Area » Security
Jump to:  

Rules_post_cannot
Rules_reply_cannot
Rules_edit_cannot
Rules_delete_cannot
Rules_vote_cannot
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1218s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0042s) ][ GZIP on ]