Does DHS really have a list of "trigger" words? [Solved]

For discussions about security.
Message
Author
nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

Does DHS really have a list of "trigger" words? [Solved]

#1 Post by nooby »

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?
Last edited by nooby on Sat 03 Apr 2010, 09:34, edited 1 time in total.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

disciple
Posts: 6984
Joined: Sun 21 May 2006, 01:46
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#2 Post by disciple »

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 :)
Do you know a good gtkdialog program? Please post a link here

Classic Puppy quotes

ROOT FOREVER
GTK2 FOREVER

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

Re: Naive Newbie question about "Security"!

#3 Post by DMcCunney »

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

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#4 Post by Flash »

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:

KF6SNJ
Posts: 674
Joined: Tue 19 Jun 2007, 05:29
Location: Distressed States of Amerika
Contact:

#5 Post by KF6SNJ »

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.

amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#6 Post by amigo »

I sincerely doubt that the majority of Linux users are right-wingers.

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#7 Post by nooby »

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

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

bugman

#8 Post by bugman »

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 . . .

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#9 Post by DMcCunney »

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. :)
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...)
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.)
I try to stay outside of all politics.
Sensible.
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

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#10 Post by DMcCunney »

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.
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.
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

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#11 Post by Lobster »

Lobster is a trigger word :shock:
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 . . . :oops:
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

bugman

#12 Post by bugman »

DMcCunney wrote:
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]

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#13 Post by DMcCunney »

bugman wrote:
DMcCunney wrote:
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.
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

User avatar
TheAsterisk!
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue 10 Feb 2009, 08:52

#14 Post by TheAsterisk! »

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.

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#15 Post by DMcCunney »

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.
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.
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".
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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

PaulBx1
Posts: 2312
Joined: Sat 17 Jun 2006, 03:11
Location: Wyoming, USA

#16 Post by PaulBx1 »

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!"
That hardly constitutes a rebuttal.

One OS gets used on 90% or so of the world's computers. Are you certain DHS et. al. have no interest in having a back door in it, even though a given random individual holds no interest for them? Some Windows users in the world are interesting to them.

I have no proof one way or another, but human nature being what it is, I'd bet a fair amount DHS does have a back door into Windows.

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#17 Post by DMcCunney »

PaulBx1 wrote:
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!"
That hardly constitutes a rebuttal.
It is a rebuttal to the belief of the part of the Tin Foil Hat crowd that anyone in the US government has an interest in hacking their machines.
One OS gets used on 90% or so of the world's computers. Are you certain DHS et. al. have no interest in having a back door in it, even though a given random individual holds no interest for them? Some Windows users in the world are interesting to them.
I can think of people in the world they might have that sort of interest in.

But let's assume I'm I'm an intelligence agent who wants to snoop on the computer of a Person of Interest to my Government. How, precisely, do I do it? First I have to find their computer. Then I have to access it. How do I go about doing the first? To get to it and use the back door, I need an IP address. How do I get that? And before I can use the back door, I need to climb the wall. (Unless you think anyone important enough for me to be interested in won't be running a firewall and have other defenses in place. If they're that important, they didn't get that way by being stupid.)
I have no proof one way or another, but human nature being what it is, I'd bet a fair amount DHS does have a back door into Windows.
They might want one. Having one is another matter.

My desktop spends most time booted into Windows XP. There is a software firewall on the PC (two, actually, Windows Firewall and a third party product), and a hardware firewall on my router. And access permissions pretty well lock down anything I don't explicitly share on my local network.

Even if MS left a back door in Windows (which I frankly doubt), I can't stretch credulity enough to assume that such backdoors also exist in any third party firewall product or router.

Essentially, getting to anything sensitive on my machines would require physical access, and if someone has that, I've got far greater problems than a backdoor in Windows.
______
Dennis

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#18 Post by Pizzasgood »

(Unless you think anyone important enough for me to be interested in won't be running a firewall and have other defenses in place. If they're that important, they didn't get that way by being stupid.)
It depends on which kind of person you're talking about. Being smart enough to become important doesn't necessarily translate into knowing diddly squat about computers. Those types of people will have security teams to help keep them out of trouble, but they can only do so much (and probably have many headaches). It is the task of the attacker to find the places they missed. Their primary computer will likely be heavily protected. But the more peripheral things not as much. Especially in the case of the not extremely important people who still have access to sensitive data. People like the president would have a lot of very paranoid people running security. But smaller politicians would have much less of that. Same goes for people who work at a large company.

(Not that I think MS includes a backdoor intentionally. I have trouble believing they would be that stupid. A lot of very BIG ROLLERS rely on Windows (for whatever absurd reason), and must be able to trust that their systems are secure. Of course, they likely have multiple layers of security to avoid things like vendor-induced backdoors on their core systems, as DMcCunney mentioned.)


To the people who don't even mind Big Brother: It's not about whether they are after you now. It's about the future. Let's suppose you like the current government. Let's even go so far as to say you trust them to be your big brother and keep you safe without mishandling your private information. So they watch your every move? Big deal, you don't do anything wrong anyway. Fine.

But what about in ten years? Will the same trustworthy people still be in office in ten or twenty years? What if they or their successors or their successors become corrupt? What if they start creating new laws that you don't agree with, that you in fact think are morally wrong? (Think along the lines of the anti-semitic nonsense going on in Germany prior to WWII.) Perhaps you would want to form a resistance. Or maybe you are one of (or associated with) the people being persecuted.


The point is, even if you trust the current government, you should not give them any power they don't absolutely need, because in the future they may not be the same government you once trusted. And it is much harder to take power away than it is to withhold it in the first place.

That is why we have things like the second amendment and cryptography and (in some respects) open source. It isn't about the government of today, but about the government of tomorrow.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#19 Post by Flash »

What are those words that trigger Echelon?

Carnivore / Echelon Trigger Words

What I want to know is, who in the government is reading all the stuff those monitoring programs must flag? There must be a billion e-mails a day that contain at least one trigger word. What's the point of looking for trigger words if there's not enough people to read all the crap that turns up?

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#20 Post by Pizzasgood »

I don't know how they really do it, but were I to design such a system, trigger words would just be the initial filter - a fast simple way to skip over the vast bulk of the uninteresting fluff. You would still have far more false positives than true positives, but nowhere near as many as if you considered every single message.

After that initial round, you would feed what is left into a more thorough (and thus slower) filter. This one wouldn't be able to handle the full influx of messages, but it can handle the volume that the initial filter returns. It would remove another large number of the false positives.

Successive filters could be chained until it gets down to a manageable level. Humans would only need to check the really suspicious stuff. And the only relatively suspicious stuff could all be archived and indexed for later, so that when they decide they need to locate all messages about "bombs in Tokyo" from the last two week, for example, they could do a search. And, at an indeterminate point int he future where AI finally achieves the "I" part, computers could process all the archived stuff that humans didn't read to search for more patterns and such (and then, upon catching up, read a larger percentage of the real-time communications).
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

Post Reply