Silk road shut down (allegedly)

strobe

Jonny7 wrote: »

You have a bank account yes - on the same principle, do you trust a private profit-making corporation with your sensitive personal details?

How about walking through Centra, do you trust them not to use all that camera footage of you for malicious purposes?

It's common sense vs paranoia

Centra, as far as I am aware, have no track record of things like murder, corruption or political sabotage etc.

There is also a slight difference between photage of me buying a pint of milk and a personal email I send to my son or a journalist sends to his source.

I'm not overly concerned if the current US administration know I sent an email arranging to go to the cinema with my girlfriend or that I googled 'hardcore gangbang' tbh, I doubt they care.

If I was a source in the US about to expose high level corruption or many other things I'd be a little more concerned.

Just because something doesn't stand to have a major impact on me personally doesn't mean I can't see it's danger or oppose it on a sound basis.

Jonny7

srsly78 wrote: »

They are doing it for american security reasons, not for Irish security reasons. Yes many of our interests align, but not all. I'm not an america-hater but I dislike when they interfere in with our sovereignty. Take a look at the leaked diplomatic cables from the Dublin embassy, and remember that's only the least classified stuff.

I would disagree

The US is concerned not only with domestic attacks. They will also share any international threats. If there was better surveillance perhaps they would have prevented e.g. the Nairobi attacks which included one Irish born woman

The part that I disagree with, as I already mentioned, is the use of this tech to spy on allies thus getting a "leg up" on trade negotiations etc

srsly78

How exactly are they supposed to seperate "good spying" from "bad spying"? They can use "terrorism" as an excuse to spy on anything. Go compare the casualties from traffic accidents with those from terrorism.

There is massive diplomatic fallout from this happening across the world right now. America has lost a lot of good-will from it's allies.

Jonny7

srsly78 wrote: »

How exactly are they supposed to seperate "good spying" from "bad spying"? They can use "terrorism" as an excuse to spy on anything. Go compare the casualties from traffic accidents with those from terrorism.

They want to prevent domestic and international terrorist attacks - as does every country.

More people are killed by purple pianos falling on them than bombs on board Irish planes - yet why all that security in Dublin airport?

Same logic. Deterrence, prevention, investigation.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup, because they are doing it for security reasons. Blame the root cause - international terrorism.

I don't condone all spying of course and I certainly don't condone the abuse of this tech to carry out centuries old spying between friendly/unfriendly nations but its a reality of the world we live in now

The be all and end all go to excuse that America uses to bypass the human rights and civil liberties of billions of people (including it's own). Paranoia is being forced down peoples throats so no one will question why the American government is doing these things.

srsly78

So stupid Ireland (and the rest of the world) should shut up and accept being spied on for it's own good? How do I opt out of this police state bull****?

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

They want to prevent domestic and international terrorist attacks - as does every country.

More people are killed by purple pianos falling on them than bombs on board Irish planes - yet why all that security in Dublin airport?

Same logic. Deterrence, prevention, investigation.

More people were killed in America this year by TODDLERS getting their hands on guns than terrorist attacks,Deterrence, prevention, investigation what's your point?

bodice ripper

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope, you went full tinfoil hat

We are monitored for security. We may not like it, and there may be some debatable isolated incidents, but ultimately it's for our benefit. We're not living in China.

If I want to look up bomb recipes online, visit jihadist websites, post extremist messages on facebook, you are "free" to do so, but it isn't a right, and in the current climate you may rightfully find yourself flagged for particular attention by the authorities

I believe I said I went tinfoil hat.

Only a spanner would believe the government has you best interests at heart, ever. We will have to agree to disagree.

Khannie

srsly78 wrote: »

So stupid Ireland (and the rest of the world) should shut up and accept being spied on for it's own good? How do I opt out of this police state bull****?

IMHO you should assume that you're being spied upon and act accordingly. You put letters in sealed envelopes, why not spend the time to make the rest of your communications private? I do. I have nothing to hide, but I dislike the notion that I'm being spied on (as does everyone - everyone has a privacy line in the sand).

The whole terrorism argument to me is nonsense. Terrorists are going to be smart about it. There are hundreds of ways to securely send data. If you're thick enough to use facebook or gmail to organise your Jihad well you bloodly well deserve to get caught, tbh.

GreeBo

Khannie wrote: »

Found this little gem earlier.

http://i.imgur.com/k7p2OZ8.jpg

To jail, baby

"little"?

bumper234

Use passive aggressive resistance to this intrusion. Sending emails to friends? Say i had a BOMB of a time in NEW YORK last time i visited. That club PLUTONIUM was so good and man that girl went full NUCLEAR on that guy. Red flag words that will keep them busy:D

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

The be all and end all go to excuse that America uses to bypass the human rights and civil liberties of billions of people (including it's own). Paranoia is being forced down peoples throats so no one will question why the American government is doing these things.

The above is a narrative.

Privacy vs security is constantly being discussed and debated on all levels

Unfortunately after a large attack - security will generally take precedence over personal liberties - e.g; Kenya recently - tough legislation will have no probs passing in current climate

Likewise in the wake of airliners plowing into buildings and killing some 3,000 people - security took prevalence over private freedoms in many of the bills/measures that were subsequently passed

Is all this now redundant? well that can be argued. I am responsible for keeping my car and house locked, I don't leave it to chance - a government is responsible for something much larger, and they aren't going to leave it to chance

A good exmaple of this, which I have already pointed out, are airports - where truly nothing is left to chance. You get patted down, searched, probed, etc - but people understand the risk - even if there's never been an attack involving that airport or even that country

Do some politicians take advantage of it? yup - I mean Giuliano couldn't say more than two words not interspersed by "911"

At the end of the day it's for security and no, they aren't interested in reading the contents of your email for personal pleasure - if you have any examples of Irish people being "offed" by the US government for political reasons I'd like to know because that would be very serious indeed.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

More people were killed in America this year by TODDLERS getting their hands on guns than terrorist attacks,Deterrence, prevention, investigation what's your point?

No one has been blown up in an Irish plane

Do you understand the logic of security at airports?

Why should a country, which has had people blown up, be exempt from these same precautions and security?


If you can provide a security alternative that is just as effective but does not infringe in any way on privacy then feel free to suggest it.

Khannie

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am responsible for keeping my car and house locked, I don't leave it to chance - a government is responsible for something much larger, and they aren't going to leave it to chance

Personally I understand why they do it. Absolutely. Would I do the same in their shoes? Almost certainly. I've spent time in the US and it's a very different feeling to be in a country where people actively want to screw with you. Ireland is more or less liked or at the very least not hated by many. Nobody's burning effigies of Enda, like. America has many enemies. They have a different mindset when it comes to security and rightly so.

I still don't like my communications being hoovered up and stored indefinitely because I value personal privacy and like I said I believe that in terms of preventing terrorism (the most touted reason) it's probably very weak (or else the terrorists are very f*cking stupid).

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

No one has been blown up in an Irish plane

Do you understand the logic of security at airports?

Why should a country, which has had people blown up, be exempt from these same precautions and security?


If you can provide a security alternative that is just as effective but does not infringe in any way on privacy then feel free to suggest it.

So because something may happen it's ok for American governments to trample all over the rights of BILLIONS of people?

Khannie

bumper234 wrote: »

So because something may happen it's ok for American governments to trample all over the rights of BILLIONS of people?

Well, as a non-American you have no rights concerning data that passes their borders. That's why they do it.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

So because something may happen it's ok for American governments to trample all over the rights of BILLIONS of people?

How are they trampling over your rights ?

I'm not all for mass surveillance but I would like to know how this has affected or is affecting your life?

howamidifferent

Khannie wrote: »

IMHO you should assume that you're being spied upon and act accordingly. You put letters in sealed envelopes, why not spend the time to make the rest of your communications private? I do. I have nothing to hide, but I dislike the notion that I'm being spied on (as does everyone - everyone has a privacy line in the sand).
.

The problem with encrypting email and the like is that most people dont do this and dont know how to do this so unless all of your contacts are reasonably savvy enough to use PGP then you cant communicate with them via email.

Khannie

howamidifferent wrote: »

The problem with encrypting email and the like is that most people dont do this and dont know how to do this so unless all of your contacts are reasonably savvy enough to use PGP then you cant communicate with them via email.

Yep. Nail on the head there. It is getting better though. I did an experiment with a bunch of average boardsies using a tool called "mailvelope" which allows you to PGP encrypt email in webmail clients. Actually worked out a treat. Nobody that tried, failed.

I have used GPG / PGP with normal mail clients in the past and found it a pain in the hole and I am geek-central.

Khannie

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not all for mass surveillance but I would like to know how this has affected or is affecting your life?

The belief that you have no privacy can have a very negative impact on mental health actually. There was a study on this (not Big Brother :pac:) that I was linked to from a similar discussion. I'll see if I can dig it out later.

Certainly I was bothered to find out that more or less all of my online communications were being stored when the whole PRISM thing broke. I was in the naive gang.

WilyCoyote

Not up to date and just read the story. But earlier I had thought that it was The Silk Road of Marco Polo fame .............. and that the Sammy Buckshot Quilligan or the Sheridan family from Rathkeale had torn out the metal bridges for scrap. It just goes to show ........ read the full story and DON'T jump to conclusions. Must make memo to self

Jonny7

Khannie wrote: »

The belief that you have no privacy can have a very negative impact on mental health actually. There was a study on this (not Big Brother :pac:) that I was linked to from a similar discussion. I'll see if I can dig it out later.

It especially affects those who are paranoid.

Your ISP, or a private investigator or just someone snooping on you on the internet could also garner a huge amt of information if they are so inclined

Perspective is key here

Khannie

Jonny7 wrote: »

It especially affects those who are paranoid.

Your ISP, or a private investigator or just someone snooping on you on the internet could also garner a huge amt of information if they are so inclined

Perspective is key here

True. "Those who are paranoid" appears to be almost nobody though, since we're all clearly being spied on.

Jonny7

Khannie wrote: »

True. "Those who are paranoid" appears to be almost nobody though, since we're all clearly being spied on.

Uh huh but there is a tad too much embellishment to this whole "being spied on"

I mean if you work for a large company, your internet usage is probably monitored - so if a case of internal fraud or a security breach took place, this information cuold be analysed later in an investigation

I doubt there's someone in the company sitting there literally "spying" so to speak

Likewise, there seems to be a lack of critical thinking with the NSA programmes..

I mean those who have most to fear are the politicians themselves, members of congress, all their private information can be potentially "spied on" - judges, investigative journalists, international politicians, diplomatic communicaes, sensitive police information, sources and so on..

If these people vote to put such a system in place, under the guardianship of the opposition - we can presume there are some fairly hefty safety measures in place

Ironically lets remember who arbitrarily dumped a whole load of private sensitive information into the public arena - diplomatic communications, classified docs, the lot

My name is URL

bodice ripper wrote: »

sorry to go tin-foil hat, but I can't believe someone is using the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bit in seriousness.

That whole 'if you have nothing to hide' argument does my head in. It's a false dichotomy at best and a dangerous way of thinking at worst. It implies that you're either guilty of something and therefore have a reason to hide it, or you're not guilty of anything and would have no reason to want to hide anything. It works on the premise that the sole / main reason for true privacy is to conceal wrongdoing.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/58468-muslim-quip-led-terror-probe

Look at the above example. A man sends an innocent text message to his work colleagues at a trade show; telling them to "blow away" the competition. This man has "nothing to hide" yet his words resulted in him being arrested, and searched, which is bad enough. But the worst part is that he was no longer able to get a certificate of good conduct which is required for his work in finance. Although he is totally innocent, he still lost his livelihood.

srsly78

Yeah but it's for his own good you know.

bumper234

srsly78 wrote: »

Yeah but it's for his own good you know.

Yup can't let those pesky terrorists win.....oh wait

http://news.sky.com/story/1150175/car-chase-woman-had-postnatal-depression

One confused woman manages to shut down half of DC and gets killed by a trigger happy (several) cop(s) because straight away every incident is deemed to be a terrorist act.

ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

They have certainly achieved that goal.

KyussBishop

This is timely:
"NSA and GCHQ target Tor network that protects anonymity of web users"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/nsa-gchq-attack-tor-network-encryption

bodice ripper

in celebration of this thread, I have constructed and am now wearing a tin foil hat. I still don't trust the government.

bumper234

bodice ripper wrote: »

in celebration of this thread, I have constructed and am now wearing a tin foil hat. I still don't trust the government.

Pics or gtfo

Khannie

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is timely:
"NSA and GCHQ target Tor network that protects anonymity of web users"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/nsa-gchq-attack-tor-network-encryption

Take home quote from that:

"With manual analysis we can de-anonymize a very small fraction of Tor users," and says the agency has had "no success de-anonymizing a user in response" to a specific request.

19543261

bumper234 wrote: »

More people were killed in America this year by TODDLERS getting their hands on guns than terrorist attacks,Deterrence, prevention, investigation what's your point?

Just to follow up on this; in the USA, you are 400 times more likely to die by lightning than by a terrorist attack.

If every plotted terrorist attack in America succeeded in the last 10 years, and 100 people died each time, the chance of being killed by a terrorist would still only be 1 in 1.7 million.

More people die from food allergies, workplace accidents and road accidents every 3 months than ever have by terrorists.

If we're talking resources and budget allocation in terms of priorities, the facts highlight the unusual discrepancy of this supposed world-wide "terrorist" threat.

Yet, the vast majority of people seem to be perfectly fine with this as justification for torture, extrajudicial murder, rendition, kidnappings, war crimes, mass surveillance etc., etc.

bodice ripper

bumper234 wrote: »

Pics or gtfo

that's my word.

bumper234

bodice ripper wrote: »

that's my word.

Kudos

Khannie

bodice ripper wrote: »

that's my word.

That's good work....to prove it's you though, I want one that says "KHAAAAAANNNNN!!!!"

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Yup can't let those pesky terrorists win.....oh wait

http://news.sky.com/story/1150175/car-chase-woman-had-postnatal-depression

One confused woman manages to shut down half of DC and gets killed by a trigger happy (several) cop(s) because straight away every incident is deemed to be a terrorist act.

ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

They have certainly achieved that goal.

Over a week ago a guy shot 12 people in a navy shipyard, they were chastised for not reacting strongly enough

bodice ripper

Khannie wrote: »

That's good work....to prove it's you though, I want one that says "KHAAAAAANNNNN!!!!"

Would you believe my name is Kirk?

Khannie

Jonny7 wrote: »

Over a week ago a guy shot 12 people in a navy shipyard, they were chastised for not reacting strongly enough

Yeah...no gun. Child in the car. No obvious surplus weight in the car (I mean it's clearly not carrying a lot of explosive). Hard to speculate really. I would imagine that if she had followed instructions she would still be alive today mind you.

Khannie

bodice ripper wrote: »

Would you believe my name is Kirk?

I might, since I work for the NSA and have all your details. :pac:

bodice ripper

Khannie wrote: »

I might, since I work for the NSA and have all your details. :pac:

its in the link in my sig. My last name is kirk

Khannie

bodice ripper wrote: »

its in the link in my sig. My last name is kirk

Hah! So it is. (I have sigs turned off by default)

You are clearly my nemesis. I will get you, Kirk. :cool:

bodice ripper

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

Jonny7

Khannie wrote: »

Yeah...no gun. Child in the car. No obvious surplus weight in the car (I mean it's clearly not carrying a lot of explosive). Hard to speculate really. I would imagine that if she had followed instructions she would still be alive today mind you.

Reality is very different from films/TV

Early reports of a fluid shooting incident often do not indicate whether it is a small event or a Sandy Hook sized event

Speaking for most cops/security personnel, they generally don't want to shoot a kid

Khannie

Jonny7 wrote: »

Speaking for most cops/security personnel, they generally don't want to shoot a kid

Ah that goes without saying.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Reality is very different from films/TV

Early reports of a fluid shooting incident often do not indicate whether it is a small event or a Sandy Hook sized event

Speaking for most cops/security personnel, they generally don't want to shoot a kid

Yet there was a young child in the car when they opened fire.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Yet there was a young child in the car when they opened fire.

Which indicates what in your mind?

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which indicates what in your mind?

They panicked and opened fire on a car containing a young child because yet again the word terrorist pops straight into law enforcement officers minds. The whole idea of terrorism is to have the people living in a constant state of fear and they have succeeded. Since 9-11 just the THOUGHT of terrorism has stripped the average American citizen (and billions of non Americans) of their right to privacy.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

They panicked and opened fire on a car containing a young child because yet again the word terrorist pops straight into law enforcement officers minds. The whole idea of terrorism is to have the people living in a constant state of fear and they have succeeded. Since 9-11 just the THOUGHT of terrorism has stripped the average American citizen (and billions of non Americans) of their right to privacy.

Anyway, without knowing anything about the officers involved, nor being able to read their minds, I'm sure the recent mass shootings in the US and gun violence in general have a part to play in police reactions to events such as this.

christ on a bike!

God, I wasn't trolling!! So unfair, it was a back and forth discussion and I was nothing but polite.
I'm kind of upset because the last thing I want is agro

Sorry but am a bit discombobulated about it

NoClues

So long as the internet doesn't go anywhere these sites will remain in existence and will only evolve and become more sophisticated as time goes on, already improved versions of bitcoin (litecoin etc) are under development and black market reloaded will pretty much replace silk road overnight.

If it took 2 years and an incredible amount of luck (most professional drug lords wouldn't use their real name when recruiting for the early stages of their empire) to bring silk road down, then all the next guys have to do to succeed is be a tiny bit smarter.

I don't personally believe that flaws in cryptocurrencies or Tor are enough to put a stop to illegal drug/arms dealing online