My definition of force involves things like threats of violence, firearms. FORCE.
People's definition of force here on HN seems to be "A written request by the USG."
82 karma · joined August 8, 2013
People's definition of force here on HN seems to be "A written request by the USG."
I would hate to reduce it to binary but things like installation of proxy hardware (Blue Coat[1]) to monitor with or court orders for conscription of local hardware are. Without people collaborating along with the US government, then people... wouldn't be collaborating. Those within the USG would be forced towards alternative routes such as those detailed in the PRISM slides.
Bonus: Security creates insecurity, all this logging and data collection creates more data. This data, which Snowden's Booz Allen Hamilton has shown[2], can be leaked. As an example a look into the Blue Coat logs leaked[3] from Assad's Syria by extraordinary esoteric activists Telecomix[4] reveals followers of Christianity along with homosexuals intently monitored.
Bonus Caution: I wouldn't touch the Booz or HBGary leaks unless you like federal prosecution for assisting in dissemination of data on the profiteering collaborators[5].
[2] https://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/6533009/Military_Meltdown_Mo...
[4] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/07/telecomix-...
[5] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-doj-is-suing-barrett-br...
This is a technical oriented community so I do feel the need to highlight the problem with focusing on technical solutions, let alone touting them as the only recourse. The writing so to speak was on the wall when recent exposed wrong-doings were made legal, immunity rendered with payments processed to the collaborators. Attempts at technical solutions have brought drone missiles upon Yemenis and others, Australians trapped in diplomatic buildings, valiant whistle-blowers imprisoned/deposed to Russia, data researchers jailed for gazing upon contractor information[1].
There is no technical solution to this. Technical solutions are getting people killed, renditioned, deposed, hunted, prosecuted, tracked, analyzed. Enough with the technical solutions already.
[1] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-doj-is-suing-barrett-br...
Encryption is now a means of making yourself a suspect. Referencing or communicating with suspects is means to make yourself a suspect.
There is no technical solution away from this.
edit: What, no rebuttal? No eloquent summary on how crypto can lead people out of this? My assertion of no technical solution has no more or no less merit than the one above. But in addition I provided reason on how crypto makes one a suspect, how associating with suspects makes one a suspect as well, a refutation of the above comment.
Let's further discussion.
If anything it stands there will be a higher concentration of work and monies given to the immune likes of Booz Allen Hamilton.
First off I doubt much of a cut on spending or a hindrance to the vast expansion of the world's surveillance state.
But if this does mean a cut in those employed it implies less targets to battle back judicially, legislatively, socially. Less 'independent' opinions (dismissing a probable increase of automated bots) attempting to justify their salary. Plus automation is king only to a point, how do most hacker seminars end? "Its always about the people."
With a clearer trail of monetary remuneration to follow that gives those in the dissenting camp a better chance to isolate and make examples of the collaborators who seek to route around justice to enforce their vision of law while hiding in the legal shadows collecting cash.
edit: Be on the look-out for a large increase in marketing of surveillance state tools to nations like Saudi Arabia, or torture loving UAE, typical nations that companies that Booz Allen Hamilton and others whore themselves out to for monies.
"Defendant Barrett Lancaster Brown moved to continue trial and pretrial deadlines on July 31, 2013 explaining that more time is required in order to adequately prepare his defense in light of the ongoing forensic processing of the Electronic Stored Information (ESI) images. The government opposed on August 8, 2013, and, in its Opposition requested the Court issue a “Gag Order” to “[i]nstruct the parties to refrain from making any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record.’” GB at 12. For the reasons articulated in Points I and II, below, the Court should grant Mr. Brown’s continuance and deny the Government’s request."
The reasons 'articulated' seem detached from Barrett himself, for those wanting to read further.
From Barrett:
"For instance, the government states that “Brown’s friend confirmed in a statement to the press (posted on August 7, 2013) that lawyers had discussions with a specific media person to arrange an in-person interview with Brown in jail.” GB at 11 (¶27). Presumably, the “specific media person” referenced by the government is Michael Hastings, a journalist, friend and colleague of Mr. Brown who passed away on June 18, 2013 in Los Angeles California. Counsel does not dispute that Mr. Hastings, as with many other members of the media, contacted counsel seeking an in-person interview with Mr. Brown. To counsel’s knowledge, Mr. Hastings did not visit or conduct an in-person interview Mr. Brown before his death."
No hints of conspiracy, just the defendant pointing out he is not multiple persons at the same time so they should 'articulate' something that deals with Barrett directly.