full-disclosure - Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove

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]

Message-ID: <CFC7A6FB29A24C3219A52E80@Paul-Schmehls-Computer.local>
Date: Tue Dec 27 20:45:32 2005
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove

--On December 27, 2005 12:11:32 PM -0800 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@...il.com> 
wrote:
>
> Interesting line of argument, but really beside the point. You are
> correct that Leif has taken the wrong line of argument, but you yourself
>  haven't quite got it right.
>
> Leif speaks as if the government has a right to monitor our thoughts.
> Such a stance indicates that we are property of (a|the) government.
>
> Just the opposite is true. The just government serves at the pleasure of
> its citizens, and must not be allowed any more power than what is
> strictly necessary, if any at all.
>
> For the US, the 4th Amendment applies, and all of the history
> surrounding it - secure in papers and effects, unreasonable
> search/seizure, etc.
>
Note the qualifier - "unreasonable".

> The recent NSA actions (and older programs, too, such as Echelon), taken
> at the behest of Presidential directive, are clearly illegal, and
> destructive of the relationship between citizens and their government.
>
Well, no, they are not "clearly illegal".  That is a matter of opinion and 
not law.  In fact, all legal precedents indicate that the program is legal, 
within the purview of the President's powers under Article II of the 
Constitution.

You are aware that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War? 
Many people were outraged and insisted it was "clearly illegal", yet 
Article I, Section 9 states that habeas corpus cannot be suspended *except* 
in times of rebellion or invasion.  So Lincoln's actions were 
Constitutional.

Just because you don't like something your government does doesn't make it 
illegal.

> The 1st Amendment also applies, in that free speech can also be private,
> with unauthorized others excluded, for whatever reason, and/or
> anonymous. If government intrudes, it has an unwarranted chilling effect.
>
Really?  Where in the First Amendment does it mention "private" speech?

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/