full-disclosure - [Clips] A small editorialaboutrecentevents.(fwd)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon Dec 19 07:06:47 2005
From: jpole at jcpa.com (Jamie C. Pole)
Subject: [Clips] A small editorialaboutrecentevents.(fwd)

Okay.

Here is the fundamental problem - we do not know the circumstances  
under which the extralegal wiretaps were conducted.  It is highly  
likely that the wiretaps did save lives - maybe even German lives.   
That is the point I have been trying to make all night.  There are  
certain aspects of the operations of any government (even a Republic  
like the USA) that the general citizenry does not need to be privy  
to.  I believe this to be one of those aspects.  When this material  
is declassified in 25 years, we'll all know whether or not this was  
worth it.

You are not going to convince me that my country is an evil place  
with designs on controlling or destroying the entire world, and I'm  
obviously not going to convince you that it isn't.

Jamie

On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:29 AM, GroundZero Security wrote:
>
> let me put it this way. if you break the law to rescue people noone  
> would bitch about it.
> that always happens that people bend the rules to rescue people.
> thats perfectly fine but invading someones privacy is something  
> different.
> the usa can invade any other country, but refuses to "invade" one  
> of their own states for the
> only purpose to help its people without weapons but food? thats  
> redicilous. the usa got so much
> power under their ass, but you want to tell me that the gov cant do  
> anything if one of its states
> refuses help ? if the gov really would have wanted they could have  
> helped.
> well at least you seem to agree on that this is wrong.
>
>> And had he done that, the liberals would very likely now be asking
>> whether or not it was legal for him to have done so.  For the people
>> that hate President Bush, nothing he does or does not do will be
>> acceptable.  It's as simple as that.
>
> sure, but if he would have done that it would be way less people  
> bitching.
> the whole world would have seen bush or the u.s gov cares so much  
> about their peoples
> lifes and safety that they bend the rules in order to protect them.  
> for once bush could
> have had a good picture in the world media. so while you would have  
> a handfull that
> hate bush anyways arguing about the law (which wouldnt help them as  
> the u.s. court wouldnt listen),
> you now got the whole world asking why the fuck they didnt react  
> and tons of american people
> who feel left alone. i feel sorry for those poor americans. soon  
> your rights will be all gone
> because 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' no ?
>
>
>