With CISPA on the horizon, use WUALA for cloud storage

Wuala seems to be the most secure online backup solution. It stores NOTHING in the United States and goes to great lengths to ensure that its staff have no access to any of your files. It's based in Switzerland. With CISPA about to pass in the US (we can hope it won't, but so far the public outrage has been low compared to SOPA and ACTA), this is worth a look. We all need to decide how much we value our personal/business data, and whether we are ok with employees at these companies being able to browse what we store. http://youtu.be/43EnCOpXD4Q

I agree that it would be wise to think about such things *before* the bill pt passes in the Senate. The problem with your specific solution is that .com domains are run by the US Department of Commerce, and that's been used already as a rationale for domain seizures. It mostly went unnoticed because the feds were just protecting intellectual property, dontcha know. I wrote an article for Fusiona Authority about this last year. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Moreover, how are you going to get around the fact that these guys own the DNS servers (ok use IP addresses) and will have access to switch and router data, likely including deep packet inspection? I wonder how hardened TOR actually is. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

That is owned by the French and operated in Switzerland.  The Swiss gave up on their banking anonymity stuff long ago, and we know the French are part of NATO and work with both U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. I wonder what the encryption looks like? Of course NSA has cracked tons of stuff and can brute force much more. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

That's it. I'm done. I'm going to Central America, and I'm living on a coconut tree farm where I'm going to collect sea shells and paint banana leaves for the tourists. You all can send me postcards. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I've thought about doing so, and said as much on the list. Looked at Costa Rica, they seemed to have a pretty open and tolerant government, but you know what, I just can't do it.  For all it's faults this is my homeland, my nation, and if and when things go bad I need to be here to at least try and help set things right. I just wonder how long it's going to be before people decide that their complaints aren't being addressed and it leads to violence. It won't take much, Chicago or Charlotte could be the spark if they screw it up bad enough.  That could be the very thing they are looking for to really clamp down, who knows. My old Airborne Daddy, Gen Hugh Shelton (Delta force, Special Forces, 82nd Airborne and one time Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff, and on the Hillary Clinton campaign which was weird) admitted in his book and on Jon Stewert that prior to the invasion of Iraq when they were lookinf for justification that a member of the Bush administration had put forward the idea of having a U2 spy plane fly low and slow over Iraq in order to get it shot down and provoke the invasion.  He freaked out and told the person (he won't say who it was), sure as soon as we train you to fly it. False Flag operations have been used time and again in history. This is turning into a very different country than the one I was born in. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Turning out to be a different country? Well Tim the stuff you've mentioned has always been used by the government in this country. Arbitrary arrest and confinement - common well before the revolutionary war and since. Active spying on citizens - just look at the anti-union efforts since the 1890's, or the anti-communist efforts since the 1920's or the peace demonstrators in the 6'w 70's 80's 90's and into the 2000's. use of military force on civilians - again that was very common since the revolutionary war. Fact is that this has never been the country you've imagined. If you're one of the groups that the government or the powerful deem a threat then your constitutional rights have never really mattered. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Larry i know that there have always been people that were marginalized, and that nothing is or has been perfect, but it was like an pendulum, excess and abuses would be rolled back, and the status quo was a more free country than anywhere else in the world. Those historic abuses, were labeled as such, and were often illegal in nature.  Now it's being codified into law. Use of military force against civilians had not been COMMON by any means, you want to see common look to the USSR, China, Chile's past, things like that.  using the word Common cheapens your point.  Has it happened, yes, but not frequently, and almost always with consequences. Whats happening now is no longer the slowly creeping expansion of central powers, but the rapidly expanding hand of the police state. Also, I'm not aware if you know, but the overreaction of people like McCarthy has proven to be in response to a very real threat, backed up by KGB and Stasi documentation from that time period.  The communists were here and they were doing everything they could to undermine our government.  Additionally those unions you speak of were the tools of those self same communists. On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

The use of the army has been common throughout the 19th century - think Utah and the suppression of the Mormons, and the use of the Army in Colorado suppressing a miner's strike. Federal marshals have also been used in West Vriginia strikes etc. Into the 20th century, there's the suppression of the Veteran's march and encampment in DC - that was quite brutal but what do you expect from General MacArthur. Its far more common that you assume. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

anyone that wants to have deep packet inspection can have deep packet inspection if they have the bandwidth to support it. Have seen comments to the effect that the TOR endpoints are monitored. I do not know that of my own knowledge though. On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:40 MA, LRS Scout <lrsscout@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Didn't the swiss also crack down on stuff like this as well?  Correct me if i am wrong, bu did't they alos go after Pirate Bay? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Yeah, looks like they have some anti-piracy group called SAFE that can pull the plug on sites at will, and do all kinds of surveillance. On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Nothing on the net is safe or secure.. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

bullshit. That's just an excuse for apathy. Sorry to jump all over you but I've heard that way too much lately. First of all, the meaning of safety and security both depend on many factors. It makes a lot of difference whether we're talking about tracking cookies or terrorist activity, Anon script kiddies or freaking NSA. It's when you talk about cybersecurity as one big fungible mess that you get stupidity like this bill. Chinese government hackers fall in the category of cybersecurity, sure. Hollywood has a cybersecurity problem if their stuff is getting posted on the web, sure, but it's a different type of cybersecurity problem and some might say a licensing model problem. Similarly, I think the authors of this bill see the use of Twitter by Occupy activists as a cybersecurity problem because it involves the internet and Occupy makes them feel insecure ;P but I submit that it's not really, until you criminalize protest, so some might say that it's really a free speech problem ;) But if we throw up our hands over theis because Facebook can't seem to understand that it should abide by its own terms of service -- which is a cybersecurity problem for you and me imho -- then we may as well kiss the internet goodbye. Sure, we should all take precautions anyway. But a web service that *knows* it is being use to organize an Arab Spring has a responsibility to put some safeguards in place also, and it's the corporate responsibility part that is so shockingly lacking in CISPA. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

If they want to get to your info...they will...so no...not bullshit. bullshit. That's just an excuse for apathy. Sorry to jump all over you but I've heard that way too much lately. First of all, the meaning of safety and security both depend on many factors. It makes a lot of difference whether we're talking about tracking cookies or terrorist activity, Anon script kiddies or freaking NSA. It's when you talk about cybersecurity as one big fungible mess that you get stupidity like this bill. Chinese government hackers fall in the category of cybersecurity, sure. Hollywood has a cybersecurity problem if their stuff is getting posted on the web, sure, but it's a different type of cybersecurity problem and some might say a licensing model problem. Similarly, I think the authors of this bill see the use of Twitter by Occupy activists as a cybersecurity problem because it involves the internet and Occupy makes them feel insecure ;P but I submit that it's not really, until you criminalize protest, so some might say that it's really a free speech problem ;) But if we throw up our hands over theis because Facebook can't seem to understand that it should abide by its own terms of service -- which is a cybersecurity problem for you and me imho -- then we may as well kiss the internet goodbye. Sure, we should all take precautions anyway. But a web service that *knows* it is being use to organize an Arab Spring has a responsibility to put some safeguards in place also, and it's the corporate responsibility part that is so shockingly lacking in CISPA. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

ya, you're right, let's all stick our head ....::cough:: Sorry, I still say it's an excuse for apathy. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

How is it sticking your head anywhere...if anything, saying that it's ok to put your info somewhere, knowing theta they can get to it anyway is really sticking your head in the sand and pretending that they can't.  If you want to put it out there, that is fine, but realize that no what you do, if you are storing it on the internet somewhere, it is not safe from government if they really want to get to it.  The only way to keep it secure is to store it somewhere that is not connected to the net. ya, you're right, let's all stick our head ....::cough:: Sorry, I still say it's an excuse for apathy. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- in CISPA. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Switzerland. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Clean out your ears. I'm not saying anything of the kind and I don't have the patience tonight to help you catch up. Yon the other hand seem to be saying that because some people's information is obtainable by some process when necessary, it's ok to do away with the process for everyone's everything. Sorry if I am not ok with that. If it doesn't bother you, then don't let me stop you from getting back to tonight's episode of The Bachelor or whatever, shrug. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Word to your Dana.... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

No...what I was saying is that it's not safe to save anything on the net...whether here or Switzerland or anywhere else.  It has nothing to do with these stupid laws.  I don?t know who's ass you pulled that assumption out of, but it had nothing to do with what I was saying.   I think you need to clear your own ears... Clean out your ears. I'm not saying anything of the kind and I don't have the patience tonight to help you catch up. Yon the other hand seem to be saying that because some people's information is obtainable by some process when necessary, it's ok to do away with the process for everyone's everything. Sorry if I am not ok with that. If it doesn't bother you, then don't let me stop you from getting back to tonight's episode of The Bachelor or whatever, shrug. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to the net. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Yes. The question is why you said it. It has nothing to do with what I said, and if it has nothing to do with these stupid laws, why did you say it in a thread about these stupid laws, mmm? I figure it's just your usual fatuous and poorly thought-out rehash of some irrelevant piece of conventional wisdom. Next you'll be telling us not to open attachments from people we don't know. Since I'm being this rude to you I'll make one attempt to explain this to you. If some intelligence agency thinks it needs too, it can get pretty much anything it wants to, this is true. There is a process for doing this. A set of safeguards which is often overlooked and is not that strong to begin with, true, but it does exist. The fact that there is such a process does not make it ok for internet companies to be able to do an end run around it any time they want. , Nobody on on this list is going to have an NSA team investigating them anytime soon, ok? So to the extent that it a web company might feel a bit queasy about US intelligence sifting through its customers' data and consider hosting its information elsewhere, the proposed law does represent a change in the status quo. You're saying it's already down the toilet so why bother. Feel free to be that apathetic, but don't complain if other people find it irritating. As for Switzerland, I suspect there are better options, but it would at least give you European privacy law. On the other hand, that particular service has a .com domain, which the US has claimed in some cases gives it jurisdiction. But you don't stop going to the doctor just because some diseases have no cure, right? Just because the US has the resources to track terrorists if it can identify them, does not mean we should all shrug off proposals to let Facebook decide whether individual people need to have their information shared with the federal government, and let the federal government do whatever it wants with that information. And maybe if enough people consider or discuss moving their business elsewhere it will have an effect. Or not. I still think it's better than shrugging and turning on the television though. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I would bet cash money I have an NSA file. Aside from that spot on :) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

yeah but are you being investigated? I suspect not. If you have or have had a clearance they probably have a pretty good idea what you're about, and bottom line, you're a patriot. That would be apparent to anyone that looked at you at all. We aren't in a Kafka novel, at least not yet ;) I mean... ICE is part of Homeland Security so I have some sort of file over there, but I'm pretty sure it's administrative. Forms about lost green cards and stuff. I've had my moments when talking to them but mostly they are rational people. That doesn't mean they need unfettered access to whatever ;) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

It was in response to the statement of storing in the cloud space in Switzerland...please read the thread first before commenting and insulting people Dana. Yes. The question is why you said it. It has nothing to do with what I said, and if it has nothing to do with these stupid laws, why did you say it in a thread about these stupid laws, mmm? I figure it's just your usual fatuous and poorly thought-out rehash of some irrelevant piece of conventional wisdom. Next you'll be telling us not to open attachments from people we don't know. Since I'm being this rude to you I'll make one attempt to explain this to you. If some intelligence agency thinks it needs too, it can get pretty much anything it wants to, this is true. There is a process for doing this. A set of safeguards which is often overlooked and is not that strong to begin with, true, but it does exist. The fact that there is such a process does not make it ok for internet companies to be able to do an end run around it any time they want. , Nobody on on this list is going to have an NSA team investigating them anytime soon, ok? So to the extent that it a web company might feel a bit queasy about US intelligence sifting through its customers' data and consider hosting its information elsewhere, the proposed law does represent a change in the status quo. You're saying it's already down the toilet so why bother. Feel free to be that apathetic, but don't complain if other people find it irritating. As for Switzerland, I suspect there are better options, but it would at least give you European privacy law. On the other hand, that particular service has a .com domain, which the US has claimed in some cases gives it jurisdiction. But you don't stop going to the doctor just because some diseases have no cure, right? Just because the US has the resources to track terrorists if it can identify them, does not mean we should all shrug off proposals to let Facebook decide whether individual people need to have their information shared with the federal government, and let the federal government do whatever it wants with that information. And maybe if enough people consider or discuss moving their business elsewhere it will have an effect. Or not. I still think it's better than shrugging and turning on the television though. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

do you project much Eric? I'll say it one more time before writing you off as terminally stupid and superficial. I *know* you are taking issue with the Swiss cloud service. My point is that you're doing it for all the wrong reasons. You're saying they can get your stuff anyway if they want it. Yes, but under the status quo it's usually too much trouble unless they have a reason to do that. Geez. At least in theory, European privacy law would apply also, although it's anyone's guess how that would interact with US jurisdiction over .com domains. The really interesting thing is that "not stored in the US" is becoming a sales point even for people who, as the infamous phrase goes, have nothing to hide. Because we are headed in the direction of routine surveillance where no reason will be needed. And "they can get your stuff anyway" is a bad argument because a) it's not true yet, at least not routinely as a matter of  law b) it surrenders on the point of whether it *should* be true -- not unless you're planning mass murder, is my take on this --- and c) since you're making the comment in a thread about privacy it conflates anti-terrorism intelligence and privacy law. Which is exactly what we're saying -- or at least I am saying -- should not be conflated. And you're so sure your unexamined opinion is correct that you keep saying it over and over again. Stop, Eric. Think. Tim and I both talk about the Constitution quite a bit but we normally don't agree this vehemently, do we? Usually he is more about the Second Amendment and I am more about the First. Consider for a minute that this issue may be something you want to think about a little. That will require that you stop emitting platitudes and listen. Yes yes cloud storage raises integrity and security concerns, but normally the tradeoff is worth it anyway. In the normal course of business. The factors may weigh out differently if this passes though, which may mean that EC2 is no longer an option for some startups -- for a start. I'd like to think that a lot of people like Gel will move their stuff, but I suspect that way too many people will say meh, they can get the stuff anyway if they want it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

If you knew it was in response to the Swiss location, then why did you try to falsely make it about the laws?  It was a statement of reality.  To say that something is more secure because it is in location X is not being very realistic.  If a government wants to get your data.  They will get it. The statement made about the Swiss company was that it was safe...  Even without laws like CISPA, it is still not safe if you want to keep information from the prying eyes of government.  To say that this is a platitude only shows ignorance of the reality of things.  Yes it is true today and it is only going to get easier as time goes on.  The governments of the world could care less about or freedoms and our security.  The US Constitution is quickly becoming worth less than the paper it was written on as our government and other so called democracies in the world create more and more draconian laws that limit our freedoms in the sake of the war on terror or other bullshit security issues.  And no...the tradeoff is not worth it.   do you project much Eric? I'll say it one more time before writing you off as terminally stupid and superficial. I *know* you are taking issue with the Swiss cloud service. My point is that you're doing it for all the wrong reasons. You're saying they can get your stuff anyway if they want it. Yes, but under the status quo it's usually too much trouble unless they have a reason to do that. Geez. At least in theory, European privacy law would apply also, although it's anyone's guess how that would interact with US jurisdiction over .com domains. The really interesting thing is that "not stored in the US" is becoming a sales point even for people who, as the infamous phrase goes, have nothing to hide. Because we are headed in the direction of routine surveillance where no reason will be needed. And "they can get your stuff anyway" is a bad argument because a) it's not true yet, at least not routinely as a matter of  law b) it surrenders on the point of whether it *should* be true -- not unless you're planning mass murder, is my take on this --- and c) since you're making the comment in a thread about privacy it conflates anti-terrorism intelligence and privacy law. Which is exactly what we're saying -- or at least I am saying -- should not be conflated. And you're so sure your unexamined opinion is correct that you keep saying it over and over again. Stop, Eric. Think. Tim and I both talk about the Constitution quite a bit but we normally don't agree this vehemently, do we? Usually he is more about the Second Amendment and I am more about the First. Consider for a minute that this issue may be something you want to think about a little. That will require that you stop emitting platitudes and listen. Yes yes cloud storage raises integrity and security concerns, but normally the tradeoff is worth it anyway. In the normal course of business. The factors may weigh out differently if this passes though, which may mean that EC2 is no longer an option for some startups -- for a start. I'd like to think that a lot of people like Gel will move their stuff, but I suspect that way too many people will say meh, they can get the stuff anyway if they want it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- know. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- television though. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- shrug. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- surveillance. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Eric. I didn't falsely anything. Please look at the subject line of this thread. I know what you are saying. What I am trying to tell you is that you are, once again, beside the point. And also wrong to begin with. Generally I pass these things over out of embarrassment for you, but this subject happens to be important so I am not going to tolerate your brand of fuzzy thinking this time. First of all, Gel did not say safe. He said "worth a look" and "seems to be the most secure". Go look. I don't think it's safe, and neither does anyone else reading this. It may have better privacy protections than Amazon for example is what he is saying. And that may be true to some extent. Go Google European privacy laws. It's not as true as you'd hope though, because it's a .com domain. I had a couple of thoughts on that that I shared with him offlist. But here's why I am busting your chops over this. a) you're answering a straw man, and absolutely refusing to consider that you might have misread. b) You can't seem to engage your brain. Try to understand that we aren't talking about "if a government wants your data" -- which is not true btw, unless you specify *US intelligence* and even then, I'll say for a third and final time, it is not true as a blanket statement, not as a matter of law. Not yet. c) we're talking about routine data-handling procedures, not what happens if someone "wants your data." d) if we follow your logic such as it is, we would all refrain from posting here lest the feds go all Megaupload on us. That would be ridiculous nor are you following that course of action yourself. The fact is, they are not interested in my attempt to get some dude in Illinois to think about what he is saying. Therefore the tradeoff of posting here is worth it. I see enough interesting news and amusing sarcasm to make it worth subscribing. e) "To say that this is a platitude only shows ignorance of the reality of things" -- dude, you're just proving the truth of Larry's signature. Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge, sorry. You want to make statements about how things are without doing any research. I haven't seen you at any security conferences these past few years. I haven't seen you show any interest in this topic at all in all the time you've been posting here. The situation is plenty bad but if you start making apocalyptic baseless statements you just discredit the people who are trying to make specific and well-researched points about actual proposed changes to actual existing laws. f) and again with the war on terror stuff. Yes. If my name was Ahmed and I was trying to recruit you to carry a suicide bomb it would not be safe for me to be talking to you on that list. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Michael being able to flag you or me because he thinks it's a good idea, whatever his idea of good idea might be, and about you or me having no say or recourse in the matter. And look, if you aren't going to read the links in the thread, just stfu, ok? I should probably just filter you out too like I do with the other people on the list who don't like to think, sigh. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Eric. I didn't falsely anything. Please look at the subject line of this thread. I know what you are saying. What I am trying to tell you is that you are, once again, beside the point. And also wrong to begin with. Generally I pass these things over out of embarrassment for you, but this subject happens to be important so I am not going to tolerate your brand of fuzzy thinking this time. First of all, Gel did not say safe. He said "worth a look" and "seems to be the most secure". Go look. I don't think it's safe, and neither does anyone else reading this. It may have better privacy protections than Amazon for example is what he is saying. And that may be true to some extent. Go Google European privacy laws. It's not as true as you'd hope though, because it's a .com domain. I had a couple of thoughts on that that I shared with him offlist. But here's why I am busting your chops over this. a) you're answering a straw man, and absolutely refusing to consider that you might have misread. *wrong* b) You can't seem to engage your brain. Try to understand that we aren't talking about "if a government wants your data" -- which is not true btw, unless you specify *US intelligence* and even then, I'll say for a third and final time, it is not true as a blanket statement, not as a matter of law. Not yet.  *wrong...go ask AT&T and several other providers about it...they seemed to think giving away customer data without a fight was the right thing to do* c) we're talking about routine data-handling procedures, not what happens if someone "wants your data." *does it really matter?  You think they are sniffing packets like a coke addict?* d) if we follow your logic such as it is, we would all refrain from posting here lest the feds go all Megaupload on us. That would be ridiculous nor are you following that course of action yourself. The fact is, they are not interested in my attempt to get some dude in Illinois to think about what he is saying. Therefore the tradeoff of posting here is worth it. I see enough interesting news and amusing sarcasm to make it worth subscribing.  *I have nothing posted here that I would want public...so I have nothing to hide here...nice try, but wrong again* e) "To say that this is a platitude only shows ignorance of the reality of things" -- dude, you're just proving the truth of Larry's signature. Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge, sorry. You want to make statements about how things are without doing any research. I haven't seen you at any security conferences these past few years. I haven't seen you show any interest in this topic at all in all the time you've been posting here. The situation is plenty bad but if you start making apocalyptic baseless statements you just discredit the people who are trying to make specific and well-researched points about actual proposed changes to actual existing laws.  *you do remember the saying about assuming, right Dana?* f) and again with the war on terror stuff. Yes. If my name was Ahmed and I was trying to recruit you to carry a suicide bomb it would not be safe for me to be talking to you on that list. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Michael being able to flag you or me because he thinks it's a good idea, whatever his idea of good idea might be, and about you or me having no say or recourse in the matter. And look, if you aren't going to read the links in the thread, just stfu, ok? *what makes you think they are not just mining for data...all of the laws we have about wiretaps and other data taps have already been violated by the Bush administration...who knows what Obama has done...so feel free to go fuck yourself* I should probably just filter you out too like I do with the other people on the list who don't like to think, sigh. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- other bullshit security issues.  And no...the tradeoff is not worth it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- normal course of business. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> unless you specify *US intelligence* and even then, I'll say for a third and > final time, it is not true as a blanket statement, not as a matter of law. > Not yet.  *wrong...go ask AT&T and several other providers about it...they > seemed to think giving away customer data without a fight was the right > thing to do* see above. Re-read carefully with particular attention to the words "as a matter of law". > c) we're talking about routine data-handling procedures, not what happens if > someone "wants your data." *does it really matter?  You think they are > sniffing packets like a coke addict?* Yes, Eric, it really matters. You're still conflating extraordinary measures legalized after then fact with making something standard operating procedure. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- can't discern the argument here; incoherent. > The > situation is plenty bad but if you start making apocalyptic baseless > statements you just discredit the people who are trying to make specific and > well-researched points about actual proposed changes to actual existing > laws.  *you do remember the saying about assuming, right Dana?* I don't have to assume when you put your ignorance on display like this. > read the links in the thread, just stfu, ok? *what makes you think they are > not just mining for data...all of the laws we have about wiretaps and other > data taps have already been violated by the Bush administration...who knows > what Obama has done...so feel free to go fuck yourself* I am not making any statements about what they are *doing*. I am saying that it's specious to opine in a discussion about making data mining legal that they are probably already breaking the law. At least the law is there for them to break, Eric. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html (I think the administration appealed) We all know about warrantless wiretaps. Saying there's no point in worrying about it because they may be breaking the law is not an argument I can respect. But you know, feel free to pull your own plug because they might be listening, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I never said you don?t have to worry about it...talk about reading comprehension.   > unless you specify *US intelligence* and even then, I'll say for a > third and final time, it is not true as a blanket statement, not as a matter of law. > Not yet.  *wrong...go ask AT&T and several other providers about > it...they seemed to think giving away customer data without a fight > was the right thing to do* see above. Re-read carefully with particular attention to the words "as a matter of law". > c) we're talking about routine data-handling procedures, not what > happens if someone "wants your data." *does it really matter?  You > think they are sniffing packets like a coke addict?* Yes, Eric, it really matters. You're still conflating extraordinary measures legalized after then fact with making something standard operating procedure. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- can't discern the argument here; incoherent. > The > situation is plenty bad but if you start making apocalyptic baseless > statements you just discredit the people who are trying to make > specific and well-researched points about actual proposed changes to > actual existing laws.  *you do remember the saying about assuming, > right Dana?* I don't have to assume when you put your ignorance on display like this. > read the links in the thread, just stfu, ok? *what makes you think > they are not just mining for data...all of the laws we have about > wiretaps and other data taps have already been violated by the Bush > administration...who knows what Obama has done...so feel free to go > fuck yourself* I am not making any statements about what they are *doing*. I am saying that it's specious to opine in a discussion about making data mining legal that they are probably already breaking the law. At least the law is there for them to break, Eric. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html (I think the administration appealed) We all know about warrantless wiretaps. Saying there's no point in worrying about it because they may be breaking the law is not an argument I can respect. But you know, feel free to pull your own plug because they might be listening, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- reality. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- domains. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- start. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- want. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- saying. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

whatever Eric.... I've spent the time I can spend on this. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----