http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01...one-can-buy-list-of-your-incoming.html
OMFG... So much for privacy.
OMFG... So much for privacy.
2Xtreme21
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2004
- 7,044
- 0
- 0
[braindead Republican]
"If you're not doing anything illegal or immoral, what are you worried about?"
[/braindead Republican]
"If you're not doing anything illegal or immoral, what are you worried about?"
[/braindead Republican]
Here's something kind of interesting. Some quick poking around seems to suggest that the same people who run the website, http://www.locatecell.com also run http://www.peoplesearchamerica.com, which seems like a similar (if more broad) sort of search site. The disclaimer at the bottom of that page reads as follows...
While they do incude that bit about "in compliance with Federal, State or Local Laws", it sounds like it might just be venturing into extra-legal territory to me. With the appropriate deniability of course.
While they do incude that bit about "in compliance with Federal, State or Local Laws", it sounds like it might just be venturing into extra-legal territory to me. With the appropriate deniability of course.
Well, while it's still allowed, IMing each other using encrypted messaging through anonymous proxies is a pretty good guarantee of privacy. I am sure there are ways to make anonymous VOIP calls as well... proxied Skype, anyone?
Hell, I'd settle for better data privacy protection laws. Europe really has it right, the problem in the US is that you don't really own most of your data.
In many European countries it's illegal to use encryption over 56bits (strong encryption) for individuals. It's not that they protect your privacy, it's that they move the capability for privacy violation solely into the hands of the state.
I would think the penalties for using plus 56bit encryp would be less than whatever your sending over that.
Ah, perhaps I should say that Europe sort of has it right. They have the right idea about protecting people's private information from companies, now if we can combine that with our American sense of not living in a police state, we'll be all set.
On another note, I always wonder about the "strong encryption" laws. After all, modern encryption does not identify itself in the normal sense, data encrypted with 128 bit encryption looks much the same as data encrypted with 56 bit encryption. Of course this assumes a good algorithm, but again, most of the modern ones wouldn't identify themselves if all someone had was the cipher text.
I suppose the idea is that they capture a message I sent, can't crack the encryption, and charge with with evading encryption laws as well. But how can they really tell? I could claim I made up a small key algorithm that they simply can't reverse engineer, when all I'm really using is 256-bit AES. How would they know?
Ah well, it's not like these laws make sense anyways...
I normally use the equivalent of 172-bit (4096 asymmetric) encryption for my emails, and 156bit (3072 asymmetric) for my instant messages... and I don't even engage in anything illegal. I just don't like the feeling that people are looking over my shoulder.Originally posted by: RichardE
I would think the penalties for using plus 56bit encryp would be less than whatever your sending over that.
Originally posted by: Meuge
I normally use the equivalent of 172-bit (4096 asymmetric) encryption for my emails, and 156bit (3072 asymmetric) for my instant messages... and I don't even engage in anything illegal. I just don't like the feeling that people are looking over my shoulder.Originally posted by: RichardE
I would think the penalties for using plus 56bit encryp would be less than whatever your sending over that.
That's probably a little overkill
You are way past the stage of discouraging casual surveillance and into the realm of hiding data from professional intelligence agencies...and if THEY are after you, I'm not sure data encryption will help Originally posted by: Meuge
I normally use the equivalent of 172-bit (4096 asymmetric) encryption for my emails, and 156bit (3072 asymmetric) for my instant messages... and I don't even engage in anything illegal. I just don't like the feeling that people are looking over my shoulder.Originally posted by: RichardE
I would think the penalties for using plus 56bit encryp would be less than whatever your sending over that.
I think all you're managing to do is put up a red flag to the govt saying "I'm hiding something."
And with the current government, you do NOT want to do that. Unless you like the weather in Cuba.
Unless you actually want to parse the data, there is no way to know the strength of the encryption... until you solve it, it's all just junk data. And unless they want to jail half of the computer science academia, and a large fraction of the rest of the academic community, along with millions of lawyers, accountants, and businessmen, encryption will just have to remain a neutral entity.
Your sarcasm is lost on me. It's not about whether you have something to hide... it's a question of the fact that you shouldn't have to even think about hiding it.
Yeah, ntdz doesn't quite know what he is talking about. And you're right about encryption strength, withing actually cracking the algorithm, or brute forcing the key, there is no way to know what you are looking at. Encrypted data, if it was encrypted by a remotely worthwhile algorithm, looks perfectly random. In fact, using small random numbers as the key and an encryption algorithm as a stream cipher is a commonly used way to generate highly random numbers.
Agreed, these guys really miss the point. It has nothing to do with having anything to hide, it has to do with the fact that since I DON'T have anything to hide, why should anyone be able to see what I'm doing. Counterintuitive if you are big on authority, but not that difficult to get your head around when you think about it.
Sounds like I'll have to start moving over to the best encryption I can find for my emails since currently I'm wide open. If the government won't help and instead encourages data mining then why should I make myself a sheep.
I would much rather be the lion when it comes to my privacy.
The sad part is I shouldn't have to make this decision, let alone be talking about making this decision going from open emails to encryption.
I know exactly what this means coming from living in a Communist state. It makes me feel sad inside knowing what this means.
Next I'll be charged with some vague law or under Bill C36 (or supportive laws) to force me to be in the open or to be made an example of. I'll tell you what. If a bunch of agents showed up at my door and demanded I did that I would flip them the bird and tell them to go ahead and try to take me to court. I may loose but I wouldn't go down without tearing them apart in the court of public opinion and with Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (think 4th Amendment in the US Constitution). I would also force my public defender to force the judge to educate a jury about jury nullification or I would fire the public defender and do it myself. Of course I would be found in contempt of court, which of course I would point out be illegal and grounds for the judge's dismissal in the case (there's precedent).
Anyway I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to try to take me to court but who knows.
I would much rather be the lion when it comes to my privacy.
The sad part is I shouldn't have to make this decision, let alone be talking about making this decision going from open emails to encryption.
I know exactly what this means coming from living in a Communist state. It makes me feel sad inside knowing what this means.
Next I'll be charged with some vague law or under Bill C36 (or supportive laws) to force me to be in the open or to be made an example of. I'll tell you what. If a bunch of agents showed up at my door and demanded I did that I would flip them the bird and tell them to go ahead and try to take me to court. I may loose but I wouldn't go down without tearing them apart in the court of public opinion and with Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (think 4th Amendment in the US Constitution). I would also force my public defender to force the judge to educate a jury about jury nullification or I would fire the public defender and do it myself. Of course I would be found in contempt of court, which of course I would point out be illegal and grounds for the judge's dismissal in the case (there's precedent).
Anyway I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to try to take me to court but who knows.
OH NOES!!! IF WE DON'T GIVE UP OUR PRIVACIES THE EVUL TERRAISTS WILL KILL US UNDER OUR BEDS WHILE WE SLEEP!!!!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter