Computer privacy?

[gadget_lover]

That should work, Larry. Use the torch to melt it to slag then drop a few magnets on it when it's cooled. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

There is a virus (or two) that change your IE security settings so that a specific foreign site is considered local. Then it makes that site your home page. It re infects every time you run I.E.

Take a look at this one...
http://www.computing.net/security/wwwboard/forum/14341.html

Daniel

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Without privacy there can be no security. I need privacy all the time. That's my business. If you do not -- that's your business.

[ QUOTE ]

It just occured to me that the advocation of encrypting everything tends to come from those that wish to create enough smoke that they are not noticed. Hiding anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty. 24/7. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Ain't freedom ironic? A cursory review of governments in general in the last century reveals that one of the most serious problems that an individual can have with his government is trying to figure out exactly what it is at any given time that he should be hiding from them. History has shown over and over that sometimes a government will kill a citizen because he failed to hide something as simple as a poem. How do you even know that you have nothing to hide? But again, this is your business.

If you think that any of the keywords you sited are valid, pick one and Google it. See how many hits you get. I suppose you think that the Feds will look into all of those, too. I guess...they could all be suspicious. No wonder Homeland Security is so expensive. Just checking out all those references to 'Computer' on the WWW is going to be pricey. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif And we know that the visible WEB is just the beginning.

As far as your elaborate rationalizations about all the ways you would try to prove to me that my methods are futile, I still wonder:

Are you still locking your house and car when you leave them? Is there something in there that you are trying to hide? Aren't you afraid that you will draw attention to yourself by always keeping them locked up? Do you always drive the same route to and from work? Aren't you afraid that your car may be less secure if someone figures out your patterns?

I suspect that your answers would sound familiar, but we are coming at this from two different directions.

 

[gadget_lover]

Well, It's all point of view, I guess. There are different types of security, and there are different types of privacy.

I lock my doors when I'm gone to protect my property from theft. I lock them when I'm home to protect myself from danger (I'm already there to prevet theft). To protect my privacy I draw the shades so that I can, if I wish, prance around half clothed. The locked windows prevent someone outside the house from lifting the shade.

But I open the doors to invite folks in, and I have the shades open most of the
time to let the sunshine in.

A story: A friend knew of my lock smithing hobby. He locked his keys in his car one day at lunch and so he asked for help. I made a impromptu lock pick and wrench and had it open litterally in 3 seconds. This was shear luck, by the way. It should have taken longer. Here's the punch line: I had to talk him into locking his car in the future. He felt if it was that simple that he shoudl not even try.

The previous post also states: Aren't you afraid that you will draw attention to yourself by always keeping them locked up?

Well, I don't know of many locks that draw attention by being locked VS unlocked. I DO know that elaborate (and visible) security measures will discourage the common thief and make you a target for a professional one. But the advocacy of good physical security does not parallel the advocacy of encryption.


Yes, freedom is ironic. It's not free. I find it strange that people worry about hiding things from a government that they feel is incompetent. In the post above was the line: [ QUOTE ]
See how many hits you get. I suppose you think that the Feds will look into all of those

[/ QUOTE ]

What I actually did was plant a red flag message if the feds really were using something like Carnivore. One of the simplest ways to look for keywords is to assign points to each message, and add points for each key word match. My post should have had a fairly high count, and you read it, so the anonymous proxy should be under investigation by now. I did not throw in the T word on any of the phrases that would really be searched for....


BTW, give it a few days and then google on "Computer privacy Encryption Stunnel proxy security homeland security ISP Carnivore". You'll most likely find your post.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

[ QUOTE ]
...BTW, give it a few days and then google on "Computer privacy Encryption Stunnel proxy security homeland security ISP Carnivore". You'll most likely find your post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just a little more noise...in a sea of noise. I think you're beginning to come around. Just a few posts ago you would have tried to convince everyone that a search using those common keywords would automagically trigger a full blown investigation by DHS. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[gadget_lover]

I forgot to say....

In this country (the US) you have the right to use encryption. Well, maybe not the right but at least there is no law saying you can't use it. There are countries like France where it is illegal. You should be writing your congress-person NOW to let them know that you want it to stay that way.

You do have the right to privacy (again, in the US) but that means that the government is not allowed to peak at certain things, except under certain conditions. I'll tell you the same thing I told my paranoid ex wife. If the powers that be are so incompetent that they need 50 people and 2 years to bust a pot growing operation, what makes you think they have the ability or manpower to spy on you? What makes you think they'd even care? If they had that much manpower, wouldn't about every 10th person work for the FBI?



Now the ones you should worry about are less constrained by the constitution. They are your favorite mega corporations. Hotmail, for instance has the legal right to use your messages any way they see fit. It's a free service and your messages belong to them. Hotmail is owned by MS, who has extensive holdings in other areas, including ISPs and databases. Imagine what they can compile if you put too much info in a message you send through them! and all without a court order.

So far, I've not seen a hint that Sub_umbra is using an anonymous proxy. Hmmm.

Daniel

 

[Xrunner]

Very interesting and though provoking thread... please keep up the discussions. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
So far, I've not seen a hint that Sub_umbra is using an anonymous proxy. Hmmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this could be another form of security? If a group of people is lead to believe that someone is using an anonymous proxy or other elaborate security measure, wouldn't some be more likely not to bother looking for themselves? (Just a though, no offence Sub_umbra. I'm not saying anything about what you are/aren't using, just trying to make a point).

-Mike

 

[Sub_Umbra]

[ QUOTE ]

...what makes you think they have the ability or manpower to spy on you? What makes you think they'd even care? If they had that much manpower, wouldn't about every 10th person work for the FBI?

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. In one post you infer that the Fed is so all-knowing and all-seeing that it is risky to use a ubiquitous word like 'computer' on the WWW -- and then a few days later you insist that they are too incompetent to spy on citizens. Those two positions are at odds with each other. Your arguments would be far more believable if you just picked one story and stuck to it.

[ QUOTE ]

So far, I've not seen a hint that Sub_umbra is using an anonymous proxy. Hmmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of an ironic statement. Believe what you like. You're the one who made the studied proclamation that I had "...done absolutely nothing..." to secure my posts. You had absolutely no credible information to base that statement on. You're the one who described yourself as a certified computer professional. Now you've gone from saying I've "...done absolutely nothing..." to secure my posts, to asserting that you see no evidence that I'm using an ano proxy.

If you couldn't see a proxy before, what on Earth makes you think that you should you be able to see it now?

[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:
...Actually, if that's what I look like to certified computer professionals, then I'm still on the right track. Thanks for the critique. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confident that you have rationalizations that you feel will cover these points, too.

This has become tedious. It's like arguing about color with a blind man.

 

[lymph]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
Let me know if you need a program that runs under linux. I can provide it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I get that linux program from you? I'm all out of thermite. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[gadget_lover]

Well, I guess Sub-umbra is opted out of the discussion. I'll respond to his last post and then let it be.

Please note that I never said that any governmental agency is all seeing. In fact I am pretty sure they miss 90% of what they should be looking at or for. I was poking subtle fun at the paranoia that the feds might be examining harmless communications. Yes, by and large the intelligence agencies are either incompetent or ineffective.

The comment about having done nothing to secure the post was meant point out that the content of the post was not in any way secured. I don't think I said anything about the poster or method of posting. The poster was, after all, riling against using plain text. In a plain text post.

The fact that no particular IP address was flagged as coming from an anonymous proxy is a sign that it was working. Well, it was until I saw that Sub_umbra appears to be a client of cotse.net. People should realize that if they are trying to avoid snooping by the government, using a paid annonymous proxy will give the gov a direct link back to you. Last I heard, bank records could be looked at without a warrant if (insert T word here) activity is suspected.

Not to spread paranoia, but the Goverment has been known to entice evildoers with things like anonymous remailers, honey pots and "services" that attract people they are interested in.

Thanks for the fun, Subumbra. Sorry that your last post sounded irritated. I thought you were having fun with it too. You probably should shift to a public anonomizer in a foreign country if you really want to stay secret.


LYMPH; I'll have to find my copy. I forget what it's named. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you a tar ball later today.


Daniel