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 07:23:39 2005
From: jpole at jcpa.com (Jamie C. Pole)
Subject: [Clips] A small editorialaboutrecentevents.(fwd)


Actually, it varies.  Most of this stuff will probably be  
declassified automatically in 25 years, unless done sooner by  
request, or held classified longer by request.

:-)

Jamie


On Dec 19, 2005, at 1:18 AM, GroundZero Security wrote:

> 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 ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>