Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed 12 Jun 2013, 06:52
by greengeek
Interesting that the powerpoint slide suggests they didn't penetrate Apple till after Steve Jobs relinquished the helm.
I'd be interested to compare the photoIDs of the various I.T professionals who moved into each of those companies during the periods leading up to the Prism "go-Live" dates. And it'd be interesting specifically which brand/model of routers/switches were installed into those companies by those I.T guys.
If you believe there's any truth to it of course...
Posted: Wed 12 Jun 2013, 13:01
by nooby
Have they placed these into linux kernel too?
I usually detest or dislike any conspiracy theory
but I ahve always wondered why Unix are so keen on
to not allow root access. Can it be that if one have it
then one see the secret backdoor open and shut and
by not allowing root then they can let NSA slip in unoticed?
See there that is a folie hat if anything
hadoop
Posted: Fri 14 Jun 2013, 20:25
by green_dome
Interesting article that I think is relevant to this thread. It mentions: open soure, Hadoop, apache software, big data, government, corportations.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/14/netflix_facebook_and_the_nsa_theyre_all_in_it_together/
Posted: Fri 14 Jun 2013, 21:34
by greengeek
Excellent stuff green_dome. That article is a must-read for anyone who cares anything at all about their data integrity and/or online privacy.
Posted: Sat 15 Jun 2013, 03:38
by nooby
One should have known this way back in 1990 something
so one could have prepared something independent of the big sharks?
Posted: Sat 15 Jun 2013, 15:04
by anikin
In the light of all the recent leaks, big brother's outreach and such, listen to what this guy is saying:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... ation.html
Sounds interesting, and I do hope his opinion will not derail this thread.
Posted: Sat 15 Jun 2013, 20:54
by greengeek
nooby wrote:One should have known this way back in 1990 something
so one could have prepared something independent of the big sharks?
Posted: Sun 16 Jun 2013, 07:54
by puppy_apprentice
poor pigeons don't have any chance against drones ;(
Posted: Sun 16 Jun 2013, 16:50
by Moose On The Loose
Tote wrote:I don't get it. You start a thread about technology being used to monitor everything we do online, a news story breaks that seems relevant to the title of the thread and then you ask people not to respond by giving their opinion about Snowden's actions because it would derail the point of the thread??
I just went to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJ2VDTQWSI
and discovered that it took a really long time to load. Could it be that the NSA is trying to block it?
Posted: Sun 16 Jun 2013, 18:59
by puppy_apprentice
and discovered that it took a really long time to load. Could it be that the NSA is trying to block it?
i didn't have this problem, i hope that boys and girls from NSA have sense of humour and will not block jokes about them
Should we KNOW???
Posted: Sun 16 Jun 2013, 22:54
by gcmartin
One of the biggest understandings we need is perceive that the idea of "surveillance" also falls under the heading of security. And, security, today, involves use of computers. Computers are built to manage data and the computer's programs give views or makes decisions based upon that data.
We have grown significantly since the 1950s to what has become the internet of today.
Here is an interview from last week on ideas we can use to maybe have a clearer understanding of what it is that the world needs; to becomes a safe place where data is used responsibly and there is transparency in its use for Public clarity.
A person in this thread ask, indirectly, "shouldn't we have known way back in 1990?"..
Here is a Professor speaking to a Government Panel on just that question. Here is shown someone bringing Public space information and awareness to the powers who could look at citizenry protection.
This thread
is not for discussion of
that commentary. But, this thread does try to show those things we should understand about security, surveillance and its use of
BIG Data.
This thread should, though, give us some ideas of what we need to plan for in our tomorrow versus feeling like we cannot do anything about it. This thread bring understanding to us.
- Should the tech community rallye around transparency more than it already has?
- Are there other things which should be brought to light for our knowledge in this area?
Security and surveillance versus transparency ... accountability ...
Re: Should we KNOW???
Posted: Mon 17 Jun 2013, 01:49
by jpeps
gcmartin wrote:.
- Should the tech community rallye around transparency more than it already has?
- Are there other things which should be brought to light for our knowledge in this area?
Security and surveillance versus transparency ... accountability ...
The problem is members of Congress having to spend up to 70% of their time fundraising. Security decisions reflect what benefits the military-industrial (congressional) complex. Dwight D Eisenhower warned about this in the 1950's, and it's been downhill ever since.
On a similar note, standard procedure for getting health insurance is a mandatory contract such as the following quoted from a major insurer:
Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury....
How is this a democracy? Less than 6% of citizens have any faith in Congress.
Re: Should we KNOW???
Posted: Mon 17 Jun 2013, 07:33
by greengeek
jpeps wrote:
Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury....
Interesting that it mentions that BOTH parties relinquish their constitutional rights...which suggests a mutual acceptance that financial transactions (money) are more important than ethical standards.
A victory of pragmatism over idealism? Or a corruption of morality?
Re: Should we KNOW???
Posted: Mon 17 Jun 2013, 14:43
by jpeps
greengeek wrote:jpeps wrote:
Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury....
Interesting that it mentions that BOTH parties relinquish their constitutional rights...which suggests a mutual acceptance that financial transactions (money) are more important than ethical standards.
The OTHER is the insurance company which has no interest in justice to begin with, since there won't be an instance where it needs to sue a customer . A common example is severe injury or death because the insurance company delays or denies a critical treatment which you are legally covered for.