Citizens and Spy Programs? [Archive]

Spursmania

08-05-2009, 03:34 PM

http://wilmette.blogspot.com/2009/08/outrage-white-house-seeks-domestic.html

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Outrage! White House Seeks Domestic Spies

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxPJc7mTO8s/SnjBNpMZQUI/AAAAAAAABvA/nc8csPVgSQc/s320/change-hitler-obama-lenin.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxPJc7mTO8s/SnjBNpMZQUI/AAAAAAAABvA/nc8csPVgSQc/s1600-h/change-hitler-obama-lenin.jpg)This is no joke. The White House is seeking a volunteer citizen spy corps to report to the Obama administration Internet based "disinformation" about "health care reform." In the White House's words: "Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet." Specifically the White House is requesting that you forward "fishy" emails (many of which will have a complete chain of personal email addresses) and web site links directly to the White House. Beyond the collecting of information, it is unclear what the White House plans to do with the names of those citizens turned in by their friends and neighbors.

From the official White House web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) comes the following:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]."

What I am reporting is not a parody and not a joke. It is happening today, right here in America. Congressman Darrell Issa (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Issa-tells-Rahmbo-this-isnt-Chicago-52464397.html) of California is concerned (http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=625) that the White House is engaging in official intimidation of Congressmen. Will the ordinary citizen be next?

Please circulate this information and the White House link widely. God help us all.

UPDATE: Today, August 5, 2009, Sen. John Coryn (R-Tx) wrote (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cornynletter.pdf) President Obama, urging him to cease this program immediately, and requesting that he "detail to Congress and the public the protocols your White House is following to purge the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported . . ." To read his letter, click here (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cornynletter.pdf).

DarrinS

08-05-2009, 03:41 PM

r9bWqcZnrDg

Spursmania

08-05-2009, 03:46 PM

If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]."

This is what bothers me the most. Any citizen who in their opinion feels that your viewpoint does not agree with the Obama Health care agenda or sounds "fishy" to them, are encouraged to send these comments and/or e-mail addresses to the White House?? This is fundamentally disturbing to me and akin to a violation of free speech.

LnGrrrR

08-05-2009, 03:51 PM

SonOfAGun

08-05-2009, 03:51 PM

Yo Uncle Sam, I ain't no SNITCH.

:lol

Wild Cobra

08-05-2009, 04:26 PM

Outrage! White House Seeks Domestic SpiesI can see it now. Another House Un-American Activities Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Committee_on_Un-American_Activities), but instead of targeting communists, they will be targeting freedom loving Americans.

Winehole23

08-05-2009, 04:27 PM

PEP

08-05-2009, 04:29 PM

Why do board conservatives care? Would you prefer that he just used the Patriot Act to get the CIA to spy on every email that went out about healthcare without anyone knowing? :D Heck, at least this way he's saving money.

I hope your not getting on this forum while your doing your chair force duties, even if you are a comm weenie. :nope

Viva Las Espuelas

08-05-2009, 04:40 PM

e-brown shirts?

yeah, lngrrr. why should anyone care.

ChumpDumper

08-05-2009, 04:59 PM

I'm spying on you guys right now.

Crookshanks

08-05-2009, 05:01 PM

Why do board conservatives care? Would you prefer that he just used the Patriot Act to get the CIA to spy on every email that went out about healthcare without anyone knowing? :D Heck, at least this way he's saving money.
I don't believe there's been one PROVEN case of Patriot Act abuse against a law-abiding citizen. The purpose of the Patriot Act was to track communications between people in the USA who were communicating with foreigners with known terrorist ties - BIG difference between that and this citizen spying program that Obama's thugs cooked up.

ChumpDumper

08-05-2009, 05:04 PM

How would you even know if you have been spied upon since the Patriot Act was passed?

Crookshanks

08-05-2009, 05:19 PM

How would you even know if you have been spied upon since the Patriot Act was passed?
Well let's see - I haven't been out of the country, don't even have a passport, don't make telephone calls to people on the terrorist watch list, I don't even know any people from the Middle East. So I could make a pretty educated guess that the government could care less about my activities.

And IF they have spied on me - I don't know it and it hasn't affected me in any way - so why should I be concerned?

ChumpDumper

08-05-2009, 05:21 PM

Spurminator

08-05-2009, 05:30 PM

I don't really like the way this was communicated, but you guys should still stop forwarding bullshit emails. Seriously.

George Gervin's Afro

08-05-2009, 08:18 PM

as long as we don't spy on anti war protests or peace rallies we should be fine

:rolleyes

antimvp

08-05-2009, 08:21 PM

Viva Las Espuelas

08-05-2009, 08:41 PM

So you wouldn't know at all.

OK.

They could just be saving up....
funny how you make speculation work for and against you. good job

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-05-2009, 08:53 PM

Libs are funny. Y'all will defend anything the Messiah does.

I'm convinced he could kill a baby on primetime TV with a screwdriver, and you guys would still lap it up as hope and change.

If Bush did this you guys would be going nuts about it. Hypocrites.

George Gervin's Afro

08-05-2009, 09:00 PM

I'm beginning to think the conservative posters suffer from amnesia. how can anyone who remained silent while bush took us on a liberation tour be so outraged and vociferous with a white house email? serious;y, we went to war over essentially nothing and the jacksommerset's are proclaiming obama is the biggest liar in his 37 yrs..you have wc in a tither over the cash for clunkers program..

hope4dopes

08-05-2009, 09:17 PM

Spursmania......love your posters man.....Aggie that was funny and to true. Wow look what the smartest man to every sit in the whitehouse is bringing to us all. It's nice too see who the real liberals are and who the limp dicks with facist fantasies are.Y' all go get your little blue shirts on now....come on now you know the words....well the word. O..BA...MA.....O...BA...MA....O....BA....MA.

hope4dopes

08-05-2009, 09:26 PM

Ho hum. The WH will cull publically available criticism of a legislative priority, and presumably will respond to so-called disinformation. Announcing publically they are making a list was politically clunky, but in fact everyone keeps track of who their friends and enemies are. What's the big deal?

Hey precious... have you freshly pressed your little blue shirt? I bet you gotta a natty little blazer as well. I know it's just a kinda social club where you all get together and trade recepies, do arts and crafts and make lists..... all kinda lists....lists of people.... mean people people.....people that laugh at you....who laugh at your blue shirt.....people who don't like the president....people that say bad things.....people who think bad thing....lists of bad people.....

George Gervin's Afro

08-05-2009, 09:26 PM

doobs

08-05-2009, 09:32 PM

I invited [email protected] to join my fantasy league.

Fingers crossed.

hope4dopes

08-05-2009, 09:35 PM

still stings that you guys lost doesn't it? this facist, american hating president gets your goose doesn't he?

Good now sit back ad enjoy the next 7.5 yrs..:lmao

Hell man put down the inflatable doll climb out of your mother's basement, and look up to see what's coming down I don't think ya'll go that long.

LnGrrrR

08-05-2009, 10:01 PM

I hope your not getting on this forum while your doing your chair force duties, even if you are a comm weenie. :nope

lol I do occasionally. This is why you'll see me post in bursts. I'll take ten minutes or so to see what's going on, and then back to boring award packages...

LnGrrrR

08-05-2009, 10:04 PM

Well let's see - I haven't been out of the country, don't even have a passport, don't make telephone calls to people on the terrorist watch list, I don't even know any people from the Middle East. So I could make a pretty educated guess that the government could care less about my activities.

And IF they have spied on me - I don't know it and it hasn't affected me in any way - so why should I be concerned?

Wow. Interesting to hear people put it that way.

So you'd be fine with this legislation as long as you don't find out your email has been turned in?

And the Patriot Act can not separate 'overseas' communications from 'conus' communications when it comes to things like internet traffic, because packets don't take one specific route.

The government uses deep packet inspection, searching for combinations of key words.

ElNono

08-05-2009, 10:30 PM

I don't believe there's been one PROVEN case of Patriot Act abuse against a law-abiding citizen. The purpose of the Patriot Act was to track communications between people in the USA who were communicating with foreigners with known terrorist ties - BIG difference between that and this citizen spying program that Obama's thugs cooked up.

Sure there has been. Even parts of it were struck down as unconstitutional. Part of the amendments in 2005 and 2006 addressed exactly those problems: abuse of NSL and the unconstitutional gag orders tied to them.

The good news is that the roving wiretap provisions should sunset at the end of this year, although this administration will most likely extend them. :td

Basically, as things stand, they don't need people to email them to know who is sending those phony emails. They're most likely compiling info to counterpunch in the $50 million dollar TV ad campaign that you know it's coming...

ElNono

08-05-2009, 10:35 PM

The government uses deep packet inspection, searching for combinations of key words.

They've done this since the cold war days. The difference, besides of the massive volume you can process with today's tech, is that prior to the Patriot Act they had to do it from Echelon in the UK, which kinda limited the amount of data they could process.

1984 was right, there's nothing like spying home from home...

hope4dopes

08-05-2009, 11:45 PM

In the former Soviet Union, psikhushkas — mental hospitals — were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Soviet state began using mental hospitals to punish dissidents in 1939 under Stalin. The Psychiatric Prison Hospital in the city of Kazan was transferred to NKVD (the secret police organization for the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) control and in 1969 Yuri Andropov, the head of KGB, submitted to the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union a plan for creating a network of psikhushkas.

According to official Soviet psychiatry and the Moscow Serbsky Institute at the time, “ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure.” Treatment for this special political schizophrenia included various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, lumbar punctures, various drugs — such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin — and beatings. Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History, indicates that at least 365 sane people were treated for “politically defined madness,” although she surmises there were many more.

Hey You think Obamas toying with the idea of putting this in his health care bill

Bartleby

08-06-2009, 12:29 AM

In the former Soviet Union . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

ChumpDumper

08-06-2009, 02:22 AM

I think micca has lost his mind.

hope4dopes

08-06-2009, 07:40 AM

I think micca has lost his mind.

whoa just a minute comrade...I don't know how that post got up there...I mean....I just.....look there's no need to email the whitehouse over this is there....I mean......look my nieghbor listens to that talk radio shit and his window was open last night I think.... that while I was sleeping he brainwashed me yeah... that's it.
Look you don't want me I'm just a small fish. My nieghbor you want him....he's pro-life and a vetran, you want him.....I'll give you names, he has these pro-life vetran friends......I tell you I'll give you names...I'm loyal to the leader....I tell you I'm loyal....I get the chills running down my legs too..I love his pecs.....please there's no need to email the whitehouse.

George Gervin's Afro

08-06-2009, 08:09 AM

whoa just a minute comrade...I don't know how that post got up there...I mean....I just.....look there's no need to email the whitehouse over this is there....I mean......look my nieghbor listens to that talk radio shit and his window was open last night I think.... that while I was sleeping he brainwashed me yeah... that's it.
Look you don't want me I'm just a small fish. My nieghbor you want him....he's pro-life and a vetran, you want him.....I'll give you names, he has these pro-life vetran friends......I tell you I'll give you names...I'm loyal to the leader....I tell you I'm loyal....I get the chills running down my legs too..I love his pecs.....please there's no need to email the whitehouse.

stop lying about the healthcare bill proposals and you have nothing to worry about.

boutons_deux

08-06-2009, 08:19 AM

Magik Negro wants to murder your grandmother, and wants to deny health care for Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

Viva Las Espuelas

08-06-2009, 10:28 AM

I invited [email protected] to join my fantasy league.

Fingers crossed.
nice. people should do that with their myspace and facebook accounts.

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 11:37 AM

I'm spying on you guys right now.
I was wondering why my computer was running slower. Better check for that CHUMP virus...

SonOfAGun

08-06-2009, 11:45 AM

Magik Negro wants to murder your grandmother, and wants to deny health care for Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

......................

ok...deal

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 11:47 AM

How would you even know if you have been spied upon since the Patriot Act was passed?
How would you know anyway?

For all of theses last few decades of modern communications, someone could easily spy on you. Making it legal for law enforcement under certain circumstances does not man someone with access didn't abuse the system before. If someone has unethical intent, do you think the law matters to them?

That like declaring a "Gun Free Zone" so criminals will put away their guns. They do it anyway.

In the late 80's, the AT&T DACS frame I worked on could monitor any conversation anywhere on the digital system, if you knew the right access codes. Now, everything is on digital switching frames. Legal or not, it can be done. I'm more worried about the ethics of people who have access. Not the legality of it.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 11:52 AM

How would you even know if you have been spied upon since the Patriot Act was passed?

When the government actually hands you a document containing your tapped phone conversations, then says oops, takes it away from you and claims such document can't be used against them?

ElNono

08-06-2009, 11:55 AM

How would you know anyway?

For all of theses last few decades of modern communications, someone could easily spy on you. Making it legal for law enforcement under certain circumstances does not man someone with access didn't abuse the system before. If someone has unethical intent, do you think the law matters to them?

That like declaring a "Gun Free Zone" so criminals will put away their guns. They do it anyway.

In the late 80's, the AT&T DACS frame I worked on could monitor any conversation anywhere on the digital system, if you knew the right access codes. Now, everything is on digital switching frames. Legal or not, it can be done. I'm more worried about the ethics of people who have access. Not the legality of it.

Nobody is claiming it can't be done. There are legitimate uses for wiretapping, including law enforcement. However, those require judicial overview (that little pesky thing called probable cause) in order for them to be legal. Ethics has nothing to do with it.

Viva Las Espuelas

08-06-2009, 11:56 AM

I was wondering why my computer was running slower. Better check for that CHUMP virus...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????

i think i may be infected too

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 12:06 PM

Nobody is claiming it can't be done. There are legitimate uses for wiretapping, including law enforcement. However, those require judicial overview (that little pesky thing called probable cause) in order for them to be legal. Ethics has nothing to do with it.
I disagree with you. Ethics has everything to do with it at this point. We are trusting the information without or without the protection of law. Under the stated means that a warrentless intrusion can occur, we are relying on the ethics of the people making the decision. If they lack the needed ethics, they will just do it anyway if they want.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 01:13 PM

I disagree with you. Ethics has everything to do with it at this point. We are trusting the information with or without the protection of law. Under the stated means that a warrentless intrusion can occur, we are relying on the ethics of the people making the decision. If they lack the needed ethics, they will just do it anyway if they want.

Speak for yourself. PGP is MY friend.
Plus, I would like the law to be respected... imagine that!

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 01:15 PM

Speak for yourself. PGP is MY friend.
Plus, I would like the law to be respected... imagine that!

PGP?

That is my point. If the law isn't respected, the law doesn't matter.

LnGrrrR

08-06-2009, 01:19 PM

How would you know anyway?

For all of theses last few decades of modern communications, someone could easily spy on you. Making it legal for law enforcement under certain circumstances does not man someone with access didn't abuse the system before. If someone has unethical intent, do you think the law matters to them?

That like declaring a "Gun Free Zone" so criminals will put away their guns. They do it anyway.

In the late 80's, the AT&T DACS frame I worked on could monitor any conversation anywhere on the digital system, if you knew the right access codes. Now, everything is on digital switching frames. Legal or not, it can be done. I'm more worried about the ethics of people who have access. Not the legality of it.

It's more like saying we shouldn't say murder is illegal, because people still do it anyways.

Viva Las Espuelas

08-06-2009, 01:20 PM

PGP?

That is my point. If the law isn't respected, the law doesn't matter.

being a wise latino/latino would fix that.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 01:20 PM

PGP?

Commercial name of a Public Key crypto product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography)

That is my point. If the law isn't respected, the law doesn't matter.

Exactly. My contention is that ethics have nothing to do with it if the law is applied.

Viva Las Espuelas

08-06-2009, 01:21 PM

LnGrrrR

08-06-2009, 01:21 PM

PGP?

That is my point. If the law isn't respected, the law doesn't matter.

Pretty Good Privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

An encryption algorithym.

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 01:35 PM

Pretty Good Privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

An encryption algorithym.
OK, Now I know what it is. Wiki has some pretty good stuff on it. As long as the private key feature is utilized, it sounds damn good. Public keys alone are a joke for security.

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 01:36 PM

Commercial name of a Public Key crypto product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography)

Exactly. My contention is that ethics have nothing to do with it if the law is applied.
Apply what ever law you want. Unethical people will violate it if they want the information.

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 01:39 PM

It's more like saying we shouldn't say murder is illegal, because people still do it anyways.
That's probably a better example.

All that some laws do are bind the hand of those working for justice. Criminals don't care about the law, so for someone to cry foul over the ethical use of FISA is just ridiculous to me. There is no constitutional violation unless someone misuses it. Anyone willing to misuse it would care before FISA was passed anyway.

LnGrrrR

08-06-2009, 01:42 PM

OK, Now I know what it is. Wiki has some pretty good stuff on it. As long as the private key feature is utilized, it sounds damn good. Public keys alone are a joke for security.

Well, I could be wrong, but almost all encryption schemes that are used today are generally public/private. I'm not aware of any public key only encryptions.

PGP is pretty reliable.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 01:43 PM

OK, Now I know what it is. Wiki has some pretty good stuff on it. As long as the private key feature is utilized, it sounds damn good. Public keys alone are a joke for security.

There's no such thing as Public key alone for Public Key cryptography.
The way it works is with Public-Private key pairs (which are mathematically tied together). The math is fascinating too but you need to know about Galois fields and factorization in order to really understand.

LnGrrrR

08-06-2009, 01:46 PM

That's probably a better example.

All that some laws do are bind the hand of those working for justice. Criminals don't care about the law, so for someone to cry foul over the ethical use of FISA is just ridiculous to me. There is no constitutional violation unless someone misuses it. Anyone willing to misuse it would care before FISA was passed anyway.

But by making it legal, you're only encouraging people to get away with it.

Look at it this way. If I were a highway planner, and I thought the optimum speed for travel was 70 MPH, I'd set the speed limit at 60 or 65... you know people are going to go over the speed limit, so you set articially stricter standards.

The same goes for law. Just because criminals won't be stopped by laws does not mean it's a good reason to loosen up on the laws. Most people won't go straight to the worst offense, but will slowly test the system.

Therefore, best to put stricter restrictions on someone, as that will potentially help slow down unauthorized access/entry.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 01:47 PM

Well, I could be wrong, but almost all encryption schemes that are used today are generally public/private. I'm not aware of any public key only encryptions.

PGP is pretty reliable.

Not really. The most commonly used encryption schemes use block ciphers (IDEA, 3DES, BLOWFISH, etc). Those use a fixed key. They almost all pre-negotiate a random key using public crypto first.

LnGrrrR

08-06-2009, 01:48 PM

There's no such thing as Public key alone for Public Key cryptography.
The way it works is with Public-Private key pairs (which are mathematically tied together). The math is fascinating too but you need to know about Galois fields and factorization in order to really understand.

I don't know the math very well; I just know the application of public/private key infrastructure in regards to information security. I know it's based off multiplications or powers of prime numbers... something like that.

LnGrrrR

08-06-2009, 01:50 PM

Not really. The most commonly used encryption schemes use block ciphers (IDEA, 3DES, BLOWFISH, etc). Those use a fixed key. They almost all pre-negotiate a random key using public crypto first.

Hm, well I don't have alot of experience in the civvie world, but it seems most military stuff is public/private.

Isn't 3DES a hashing algorithm? I always have trouble remembering the uses/differences between them, as I don't work with encryption/decryption day to day.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 01:50 PM

Apply what ever law you want. Unethical people will violate it if they want the information.

The problem here is not with unethical people. The problem here is the attempt to make the entire conundrum ethically permissible and lawful.
There are always corrupt cops and everything else. That doesn't mean that we need to adjust the laws to condone their activities.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 02:08 PM

I don't know the math very well; I just know the application of public/private key infrastructure in regards to information security. I know it's based off multiplications or powers of prime numbers... something like that.

It's mostly modular arithmetic (thus the Galois field reference).
And yes, it's based on prime number multiplication. It gains it's strength on the intractability to factor a very large composite number made up of two very large prime numbers. Elliptic Curve cryptography (like El Gamal) is basically somewhat the same but using logarithms instead of exponentiation.

Hm, well I don't have alot of experience in the civvie world, but it seems most military stuff is public/private.

Isn't 3DES a hashing algorithm? I always have trouble remembering the uses/differences between them, as I don't work with encryption/decryption day to day.

Depends on the usage. For example, real time data streaming using public key crypto is almost always absolutely a no go. For smaller data or when performance is not required then public crypto is king (like emails).

3DES is basically a variant of DES, the very very old military standard block cipher. DES used a 56 bit key (64 bits with parity). 3DES is basically 3 rounds of DES using 3 different keys, bringing the key length to a more amenable 168 bits (it might not seem a lot, but block ciphers work on a completely different realm from public key ciphers, and when combined with CBC modes, it's even harder to break them).

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 02:15 PM

Well, I could be wrong, but almost all encryption schemes that are used today are generally public/private. I'm not aware of any public key only encryptions.

PGP is pretty reliable.
Netscape, explorer, etc. use public keys. Think about it. You never create a key that only you and the person you are corresponding with have. Any good program developer can reverse engineer a public key. That's why you never should never do financial transactions, banking, etc. on the internet. Not unless you have a unique key you input. with the other end. Password alone doesn't cut it.

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 02:18 PM

The problem here is not with unethical people. The problem here is the attempt to make the entire conundrum ethically permissible and lawful.
There are always corrupt cops and everything else. That doesn't mean that we need to adjust the laws to condone their activities.
It's already ethical under the constitution. As long as we don't violate the constitution, I'm game.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 04:57 PM

Netscape, explorer, etc. use public keys. Think about it. You never create a key that only you and the person you are corresponding with have. Any good program developer can reverse engineer a public key. That's why you never should never do financial transactions, banking, etc. on the internet. Not unless you have a unique key you input. with the other end. Password alone doesn't cut it.

Ehhh... no. A crypto key is indeed created for every SSL session, the reason your input isn't asked for is because it's much more secure to use a strong entropy random key.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 05:00 PM

It's already ethical under the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't deal in morals. There's no such thing as a 'ethical under the constitution' construct.

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 05:05 PM

Ehhh... no. A crypto key is indeed created for every SSL session, the reason your input isn't asked for is because it's much more secure to use a strong entropy random key.You don't get what I'm saying. Since there is no unique key at each end to start with, any good programmer can reverse engineer the data stream. It is not secure to a professional.

Wild Cobra

08-06-2009, 05:06 PM

The Constitution doesn't deal in morals. There's no such thing as a 'ethical under the constitution' construct.
OK, my choice of wording was poor. My point goes back to reasonable and unreasonable. With probable cause, it is reasonable to search and seize.

Bender

08-06-2009, 07:40 PM

i would like the Obama administration, and all of you, to know that I support our president, his SC pick, his economic bills, and especially the government's health care proposals.

thanks

PS: feel free to forward this

ElNono

08-06-2009, 08:00 PM

You don't get what I'm saying. Since there is no unique key at each end to start with, any good programmer can reverse engineer the data stream. It is not secure to a professional.

There are unique keys at each end.
I am a professional.
You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

ElNono

08-06-2009, 08:00 PM

OK, my choice of wording was poor. My point goes back to reasonable and unreasonable. With probable cause, it is reasonable to search and seize.

That I agree with.

Marcus Bryant

08-06-2009, 10:27 PM

ElNono

08-06-2009, 10:43 PM

"There is a lot of disinformation about the Patriot Act out there, including warrantless wiretapping on US citizens. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about the Patriot Act that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]."

Dubya was a lot more neat. He would send you a NSL asking you to rat out the info he needed. Since you couldn't challenge a NSL, or even talk about it's existence (that includes to potential counsel), then you were SOL.
Patriot Act FTW!

Yonivore

08-07-2009, 07:05 AM

I'm sure the seasoned attorneys that find the time to grace us with their presence on this board will find a defense for the administration but, there are some in the legal profession that believe the Obama administration may be in violation of § 552a. Records maintained on individuals (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html).

Particularly (e)(7) which commands federal agencies -- of which, I think we can all agree, the White House is one --

"(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;"

So, hit the books barristers, the President needs you to help him maintain his prerogative to collect information via [email protected]

LnGrrrR

08-07-2009, 07:27 AM

That I agree with.

Except the datamining program has no strong reasonable/unreasonable delineations, and merely picks out emails based on a few factors and pulls them out for review. Ergo, innocent people's mail is being read along with those that aren't innocent.

Theoretically they could only try to pull email packets from a certain IP, but that wouldn't justify the massive amounts of money and time the government has invested in the system.

LnGrrrR

08-07-2009, 07:28 AM

I'm sure the seasoned attorneys that find the time to grace us with their presence on this board will find a defense for the administration but, there are some in the legal profession that believe the Obama administration may be in violation of § 552a. Records maintained on individuals (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html).

Particularly (e)(7) which commands federal agencies -- of which, I think we can all agree, the White House is one --

So, hit the books barristers, the President needs you to help him maintain his prerogative to collect information via [email protected]

I'm fine with this program getting shut down, so really, I don't care. I think it was a half-thought out attempt to see what chain letters discussing health care were the most prevalent so they could run damage control on those issues.

LnGrrrR

08-07-2009, 07:31 AM

There are unique keys at each end.
I am a professional.
You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Again you have more experience than I ElNono, but wouldn't an encryption scheme with only a public key be one way only? And without the other key to decrypt, the data would be useless.

Ah well, scientists will come up with quantum encryption in the next few years anyways, which will screw the game ALL up...

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 07:37 AM

I'm sure the seasoned attorneys that find the time to grace us with their presence on this board will find a defense for the administration but, there are some in the legal profession that believe the Obama administration may be in violation of § 552a. Records maintained on individuals (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html).

Particularly (e)(7) which commands federal agencies -- of which, I think we can all agree, the White House is one --

So, hit the books barristers, the President needs you to help him maintain his prerogative to collect information via [email protected] says the records on individuals will be maintained?

Yonivore

08-07-2009, 07:41 AM

Who says the records on individuals will be maintained?
White House emails are public records with a retention requirement. I think the Open Records Act -- therefore, Congress -- says they'll be maintained.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 07:44 AM

But not records on individuals -- just a bunch of emails that were sent in voluntarily.

Yonivore

08-07-2009, 07:51 AM

But not records on individuals -- just a bunch of emails that were sent in voluntarily.

"(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;"
Substitute email for record -- because, that's what it is -- and, it seems this section is relevant.

I don't believe they are sent in voluntarily by the subject of the email.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 07:57 AM

Substitute email for record -- because, that's what it is -- and, it seems this section is relevant.

I don't believe they are sent in voluntarily by the subject of the email.They are voluntarily sent in by the sender of the email. I'm sure the White House already receives many forwarded emails with political speech on them. You're saying they are obligated to delete any trace of those emails even though they are obligated to keep a record of all the communications under the records act. You'll need to prove this is already being done.

Yonivore

08-07-2009, 08:00 AM

They are voluntarily sent in by the sender of the email. I'm sure the White House already receives many forwarded emails with political speech on them. You're saying they are obligated to delete any trace of those emails even though they are obligated to keep a record of all the communications under the records act. You'll need to prove this is already being done.
Solicited by the White House.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 08:01 AM

Solicited by the White House.There was nothing in the laws you posted about that.

Besides, it looks like the Open Records statute you cited expressly allows the keeping of the emails.

Yonivore

08-07-2009, 08:05 AM

There was nothing in the laws you posted about that.
I believe a T.V. lawyer would say something like, "speaks to intent, your honor."

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 08:06 AM

I believe a T.V. lawyer would say something like, "speaks to intent, your honor."I believe it wouldn't hold water in the real world since you provided the statute that allows, no, actually requires the retention of the records.

Yonivore

08-07-2009, 08:09 AM

I believe it wouldn't hold water in the real world.
No doubt you so.

The administration cannot control unsolicited email and its content. Setting up an email account and soliciting emails about the first amendment activities of private citizens is another matter.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 08:17 AM

You'd have to prove how it is another matter. No law you have posted up to this point says anything about solicitation or intent. You have posted that they are actually required to keep all the emails they receive, which appears to meet the statutory requirement of the "Records Maintained on Individuals" law and haven't provided any exceptions to the Open Records law that would require the destruction of those records.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 08:27 AM

It's an interesting contradiction. I'm sure there will be a court challenge if your blogger's legal opinion has merit.

ChumpDumper

08-07-2009, 08:53 AM

Looks like someone already asked some lawyers about this.
Senate Judiciary Committee lawyers studying the proposal say that although there is no absolutely settled law on the matter, the White House plan is likely not covered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies from keeping any records "describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained." Therefore, it appears the White House can legally keep records of the emails and other communications it receives in response to Phillips' request.

Those lawyers also point out that the White House is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which means it would not have to release any information on the plan to members of the public who make a request.

In addition, the lawyers say the collected emails likely will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. Phillips' request suggests that whatever information the White House receives on health-care reform "disinformation" will be used to further the goal of passing a national health-care makeover, which is, of course, one of the president's main policy initiatives. Such material, and whatever the White House does with it, would qualify as presidential records. Only after more than a decade would such records be publicly available.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-dissident-database-could-be-secret----and-permanent-52571822.html

Wild Cobra

08-07-2009, 03:07 PM

There are unique keys at each end.
I am a professional.
You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
If there are unique keys, then that's fine. However, if it's software created during the session, and the distant end has to recreate a key, then it can be reverse engineered.

Wild Cobra

08-07-2009, 03:12 PM

Who says the records on individuals will be maintained?There is a law that e-mails must be retained. Remember the controversy over deleting e-mails?

ElNono

08-07-2009, 03:13 PM

Again you have more experience than I ElNono, but wouldn't an encryption scheme with only a public key be one way only? And without the other key to decrypt, the data would be useless.

Ah well, scientists will come up with quantum encryption in the next few years anyways, which will screw the game ALL up...

We're mixing things up. A block cipher only requires a single key, which can be used to encrypt/decrypt. A public key encryption cypher requires a public and private key pair. If you want to communicate two-way with it, then you need one pair on each end, but for SSL is not really necessary.

Without all the details, this is what happens when you open a SSL connection:
- Server sends certificate
- Client gets certificate and verifies: 1) That the host name on the certificate matches the host name it connected to. 2) That the certificate has not expired and 3) That the certificate has been digitally signed by a certificate authority (Verisign, etc). Every browser comes with a list of certificate authorities (which themselves are certificates). If something doesn't match, then this is when the web browser warns you that the certificate is not valid, and asks you wether you want to continue.
- The server certificate also contains an RSA public key. So if everything verified correctly, the client grabs this RSA public key from the certificate.
- Server and client negotiate a block cipher to use and the server provides a cryptographic strong random key for the session (it does this by encrypting the block cipher key with it's private RSA key, and the client decrypts it with the public key it obtained from the certificate before).
- Now you have a secure connection both ways using the block cipher.

To see this in action, if you are using Firefox, go to a secure site, then double click on the little lock at the bottom right.
Under 'Web Site Identity' you can view the server's certificate, along with the public key, who issued the certificate (the Certificate Authority), the validity, etc. Under 'Technical Details', you can read "Connection Encrypted: High-grade Encryption (<block cipher - key bits>). For example, my bank uses 3DES-EDE-CBC 168 bits.

ElNono

08-07-2009, 03:15 PM

If there are unique keys, then that's fine. However, if it's software created during the session, and the distant end has to recreate a key, then it can be reverse engineered.

Read my previous post.

Wild Cobra

08-07-2009, 03:44 PM

Read my previous post.
Are you serious?

How does the distant program unravel the key?

You thing a good programmer cannot do the same?

You have to have unique keys that are input, not computer generated. If computer generated, they have to be delivered with security, and it's not secure under the public key, until the private key is set. I haven't worked with cryptography for several years, but I do know that as fact. Knowing the public key, and monitoring it as the private key is generated, you now also have the private key if you know how to reverse engineer the cryptography.

ElNono

08-07-2009, 04:50 PM

You have to have unique keys that are input, not computer generated. If computer generated, they have to be delivered with security, and it's not secure under the public key, until the private key is set. I haven't worked with cryptography for several years, but I do know that as fact. Knowing the public key, and monitoring it as the private key is generated, you now also have the private key if you know how to reverse engineer the cryptography.

No private key is generated.
This is how it works:
I generate a private,public key pair. I hand you and 10 other people my public key.
Whenever I want to send you a message, I encrypt it with my private key and send it to you.
You decrypt it with my public key. No private key is generated to do that.
My private key never leaves my computer. You cannot derive my private key from the public key I gave you.

Neat, uh?

Wild Cobra

08-07-2009, 04:58 PM

No private key is generated.
This is how it works:
I generate a private,public key pair. I hand you and 10 other people my public key.
Whenever I want to send you a message, I encrypt it with my private key and send it to you.
You decrypt it with my public key. No private key is generated to do that.
My private key never leaves my computer. You cannot derive my private key from the public key I gave you.

Neat, uh?
Anyone else that has the public key can decrypt it.

ElNono

08-07-2009, 05:13 PM

Anyone else that has the public key can decrypt it.

Good, I wanted you to get to this point.
Now, we introduce YOUR private,public key pair.
Where you hand me your public key, and you keep your private key.
So the only keys exchanged were the public keys, even through a unsecure channel.

Now, when I want to send a message JUST to you:
I encrypt the message with my private key, then reencrypt it with your public key, then send it to you.
At that point, you decrypt it with your private key, and then one more time with my public key.
Now, even if somebody would have both of our public keys, they couldn't read the message. The private keys never left our computers, and cannot be derived from the public keys.

And this is indeed how public key cryptography works.

Wild Cobra

08-07-2009, 05:46 PM

Good, I wanted you to get to this point.
Now, we introduce YOUR private,public key pair.
Where you hand me your public key, and you keep your private key.
So the only keys exchanged were the public keys, even through a unsecure channel.

Now, when I want to send a message JUST to you:
I encrypt the message with my private key, then reencrypt it with your public key, then send it to you.
At that point, you decrypt it with your private key, and then one more time with my public key.
Now, even if somebody would have both of our public keys, they couldn't read the message. The private keys never left our computers, and cannot be derived from the public keys.

And this is indeed how public key cryptography works.
I'm with you, except when were the copies of the private key passed? If they were passed over the public key, they could have been copied by anyone else with the public key.

You can only securely transmit a private key to the other user if the encryption is already protected with a private key. We use to update keys that way, but we were already secure.

Now as a bank. The system operates on a public key. Fine. Each user has his own private key, and the bank has a copy of all the private keys. This key would have to be sent by some other method like hand delivered, or by mail and manually entered. Even by disk, USB stick, or any method that is secure, and not transmitted in the public.

If you expect me to trust a private key sent over a system only protected by a public key, then you expect too much. If that's what is happening, and you believe it's secure, then your employer is blowing smoke up your ass. Anyone monitoring the data exchange can decrypt the key with the right know how.
Where you hand me your public key, and you keep your private key.If you meant what I said earlier by hand, disk, stick, etc. then yes, the data is secure.

My argument is you cannot securely pass a private key over a public key protected system.

ElNono

08-07-2009, 09:08 PM

I'm with you, except when were the copies of the private key passed? If they were passed over the public key, they could have been copied by anyone else with the public key.

They never were. You don't need to pass the private key.

You can only securely transmit a private key to the other user if the encryption is already protected with a private key. We use to update keys that way, but we were already secure.

You don't ever need to transmit the private key.

Now as a bank. The system operates on a public key. Fine. Each user has his own private key, and the bank has a copy of all the private keys. This key would have to be sent by some other method like hand delivered, or by mail and manually entered. Even by disk, USB stick, or any method that is secure, and not transmitted in the public.

No. The bank has it's own private key, and a copy of all the public keys.

If you expect me to trust a private key sent over a system only protected by a public key, then you expect too much. If that's what is happening, and you believe it's secure, then your employer is blowing smoke up your ass. Anyone monitoring the data exchange can decrypt the key with the right know how.If you meant what I said earlier by hand, disk, stick, etc. then yes, the data is secure.

The private key is never sent. Only the public key is. I can send you my public key over this very forum, and you can send me yours, and we'll be as secure as ever.

My argument is you cannot securely pass a private key over a public key protected system.

You could. You just don't understand at all whatsoever how the system works. But that's ok. Obviously you don't work with this stuff, so I can't expect you to understand.