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 07:20:24 2005
From: fd at g-0.org (GroundZero Security)
Subject: [Clips] A small editorialaboutrecentevents.(fwd)

yeah if i still care in 25 years then we'll see. is everything going to be declassified after 25 years in usa ?
or does certain stuff stay classified ? i dont know how that works overthere so i thought i'd ask :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jamie C. Pole" <jpole@...a.com>
To: "GroundZero Security" <fd@....org>
Cc: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [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 ?
> >
> >
> >
>