Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 07, 2016, 08:16:45 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?  (Read 12965 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2012, 09:00:59 AM »
^^ Give an inch to government, and they'll take a light year.

The current government is working very diligently to flush Canada down the toilet.

The really messed up thing is that while they way infinite power to listen in on Canadians, they're writing legislation in secret, and not letting Canadians know. It's hypocrisy in the extreme.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2012, 08:44:16 PM »
Police need new internet surveillance tools, say chiefs
Bill C-30 would give police access to internet communications without a warrant

  What, Canada trying to keep up with the U.S. with police state laws?  All this time I thought Canada was better than that..... :(

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2012, 01:41:03 AM »
Ok, back on topic... Just saw this:

http://publicintelli...-terrorist-internet/

Quote
431. Public-private partnerships may also provide a forum to promote minimum standards for the secure retention of data by private sector stakeholders and enhance the channels of communication for the provision of information by private sector stakeholders regarding suspicious activities.

i.e. Because it's illegal for the government to do it, private companies will!

More horrors at the link above. Just posting one of the digital atrocities.

Welcome to planet Earth, where every year is 1984! :P
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2012, 04:41:29 PM »
Welcome to planet Earth, where every year is 1984! :P

Then the powers that be produced this:

http://news.cnet.com...urveillance-cameras/
Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.
...
---------
The article goes on a red herring wailing about how "new" tech is vs citizen rights. Sorry, surveillance cameras are ... cameras. Cameras are the cutting edge news of 1920, though it would be hard to hide a couple of the early ones.

What has happened is that someone Sent A Memo that says "look how much fun we can have now!" For you math types out there, here's my analogy:

Divide by zero.
Now STFU about this "illegal operation crap." I SAID, Divide by Zero NOW or you are a terrorist!

And remember all that cool Founding Fathers stuff about "inalienable rights"? Sorry, rights are very very alienable. :(

Extra Credit: The Supreme Court is looking at cases about sending sniff dogs onto your private property to look for evidence to nail you with too.

SeraphimLabs

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • Posts: 497
  • Be Ready
    • View Profile
    • SeraphimLabs
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2012, 04:48:35 PM »
Extra Credit: The Supreme Court is looking at cases about sending sniff dogs onto your private property to look for evidence to nail you with too.


Oh that's going to go very well

Unauthorized dogs on my lawn are met with flying bits of lead as they are a threat to the livestock.

I wonder how the court would deal with that one.

"Sorry Officer, I thought it was a stray that would kill my chickens."

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2012, 05:15:07 PM »
Extra Credit: The Supreme Court is looking at cases about sending sniff dogs onto your private property to look for evidence to nail you with too.


Oh that's going to go very well

Unauthorized dogs on my lawn are met with flying bits of lead as they are a threat to the livestock.

I wonder how the court would deal with that one.

"Sorry Officer, I thought it was a stray that would kill my chickens."

Watch them get you with a sentence of first degree murder of a police officer on duty!  :o

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,296
    • View Profile
    • www.StoicJoker.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2012, 07:45:34 PM »
In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.

I wonder exactly how hard it really is to generate a 'small' EMP..

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2012, 08:50:06 PM »
Welcome to planet Earth, where every year is 1984! :P

Then the powers that be produced this:

http://news.cnet.com...urveillance-cameras/
Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.
...
---------
The article goes on a red herring wailing about how "new" tech is vs citizen rights. Sorry, surveillance cameras are ... cameras. Cameras are the cutting edge news of 1920, though it would be hard to hide a couple of the early ones.

What has happened is that someone Sent A Memo that says "look how much fun we can have now!" For you math types out there, here's my analogy:

Divide by zero.
Now STFU about this "illegal operation crap." I SAID, Divide by Zero NOW or you are a terrorist!

And remember all that cool Founding Fathers stuff about "inalienable rights"? Sorry, rights are very very alienable. :(

Extra Credit: The Supreme Court is looking at cases about sending sniff dogs onto your private property to look for evidence to nail you with too.


  I live out in the middle of nowhere.  Dogs that come on my property are normally shot on site.... I have problems with feral dogs, coyotes that like to run my horses...  My AR15 has that "reach out and touch someone" effect.   >:D

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2012, 09:49:20 PM »
Watch them get you with a sentence of first degree murder of a police officer on duty!  :o

That reminds me of this:

http://www.copblock....uld-you-shoot-a-cop/

Quote
When Should You Shoot A Cop

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2012, 09:37:27 AM »
More links in the Orwellian chain.  >:(

http://tech.slashdot...guilt-by-association
Google Patents Guilt-By-Association
""Guilt by association is defined as the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty. It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,922, which was awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network Using Links, the invention of three Googlers. In its patent application, Google argues that if an individual posts content to social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. 'that is illegal (e.g., content violating copyright law, content violating penal statutes, etc.), inappropriate for minors (e.g., pornography, "R" or "NC-17" rated videos, adult content, etc.), in contravention of an end user licensing agreement (EULA), etc.', then their friends 'may be likely to post content to their profile pages related to similar topics.'"


Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2012, 09:54:26 AM »
More links in the Orwellian chain.  >:(

http://tech.slashdot...guilt-by-association
Google Patents Guilt-By-Association
""Guilt by association is defined as the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty. It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,922, which was awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network Using Links, the invention of three Googlers. In its patent application, Google argues that if an individual posts content to social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. 'that is illegal (e.g., content violating copyright law, content violating penal statutes, etc.), inappropriate for minors (e.g., pornography, "R" or "NC-17" rated videos, adult content, etc.), in contravention of an end user licensing agreement (EULA), etc.', then their friends 'may be likely to post content to their profile pages related to similar topics.'"

 :o

 :o

 :tellme:

 :huh:

 :'(

WTF!?!

Would you care to understate that just a bit more?
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2012, 05:42:18 PM »
WTF!?!
Would you care to understate that just a bit more?

Okay, so if Apple spies on you with this technique, they have to pay Google licensing rights for it! But I'll bet the Govt gets a free license to use it, so they can Keep You Safe. Or something...

But yes, so if your friend uploads a song, *you* get put on a watch list!

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,328
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2012, 05:47:11 PM »
Maybe we could charge google for us being friends with people who do dodgy crap on the net ...
Seriously though, what does this mean (for us) ?

Avoid google+ ???
Tom

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2012, 08:50:40 PM »
More links in the Orwellian chain.  >:(

http://tech.slashdot...guilt-by-association
Google Patents Guilt-By-Association
""Guilt by association is defined as the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty. It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,922, which was awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network Using Links, the invention of three Googlers. In its patent application, Google argues that if an individual posts content to social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. 'that is illegal (e.g., content violating copyright law, content violating penal statutes, etc.), inappropriate for minors (e.g., pornography, "R" or "NC-17" rated videos, adult content, etc.), in contravention of an end user licensing agreement (EULA), etc.', then their friends 'may be likely to post content to their profile pages related to similar topics.'"
  In other words, they're doing the same thing that law enforcement has been doing for years....Guilt by association....

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2012, 09:27:12 PM »
  In other words, they're doing the same thing that law enforcement has been doing for years....Guilt by association....

Maybe, but it's all different now with a patent!

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,328
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2012, 08:55:36 AM »
  In other words, they're doing the same thing that law enforcement has been doing for years....Guilt by association....

Maybe, but it's all different now with a patent!

does that mean no-one else will be able to do it?
or just that they'll have to pay google ...
Tom

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2012, 09:14:54 AM »
  In other words, they're doing the same thing that law enforcement has been doing for years....Guilt by association....

Maybe, but it's all different now with a patent!

does that mean no-one else will be able to do it?
or just that they'll have to pay google ...

I do sorta mean that. Two variants.
1. Govt DHS and gang get it for free to Keep You Safe. Upsetting but boring.
2. Everyone else has to pay Google, or cleanroom their own versions. That is the funny - haha part for me.

SeraphimLabs

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • Posts: 497
  • Be Ready
    • View Profile
    • SeraphimLabs
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2012, 10:03:41 AM »
That really does look suspiciously like Google just patent trolled everyone else in our favor. Whose side are they really on in all this? Every so often I see Google sticking up for us while most of the other big names are out to kill us.

In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.

I wonder exactly how hard it really is to generate a 'small' EMP..

Not hard at all. There's people with capacitive discharge machines used for coin crushing that work by generating local EMPs of sufficient intensity to shrink metallic objects.


Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2012, 10:06:26 AM »
I wonder exactly how hard it really is to generate a 'small' EMP..
Not hard at all. There's people with capacitive discharge machines used for coin crushing that work by generating local EMPs of sufficient intensity to shrink metallic objects.

Got a URL? ;D
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

SeraphimLabs

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • Posts: 497
  • Be Ready
    • View Profile
    • SeraphimLabs
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2012, 12:28:37 PM »
I wonder exactly how hard it really is to generate a 'small' EMP..
Not hard at all. There's people with capacitive discharge machines used for coin crushing that work by generating local EMPs of sufficient intensity to shrink metallic objects.

Got a URL? ;D

If I shared it, we'd both be added to the terrorist watchlist. They're not hard to figure out though if you know a few things about electricity and physics.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2012, 12:09:32 PM »
More ways to feel safe:

http://www.nytimes.c...-cellphone-logs.html
NY City Is Amassing Trove of Cellphone Logs

P.S. I have to watch the locations of these stories more. "At first I didn't care because I didn't live in NYC. Then I moved to NYC..." Pastor Niemoller and all that.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/First_they_came...


TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2012, 12:18:29 PM »

And this:

http://www.theregist...cebook_couples_page/
Automatic Facebook couple pages: Nauseating sign of desperation
Ad firm frantically churns the content you gave it

SeraphimLabs

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • Posts: 497
  • Be Ready
    • View Profile
    • SeraphimLabs
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2012, 10:45:01 PM »
I don't want to be safe anymore.

I just want to have a place to sleep at night, even if I have to defend it with my own blood.

Is that too much to ask for anymore?

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #48 on: November 28, 2012, 07:37:08 PM »
I don't want to be safe anymore.

I just want to have a place to sleep at night, even if I have to defend it with my own blood.

Is that too much to ask for anymore?

AMEN

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2012, 08:52:02 PM »
More Dystopian Novel junk:

http://www.guardian....ted-crackdown-occupy

Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy

New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent

"...The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens...."

http://www.justiceon...y/fbi-files-ows.html