full-disclosure - Re: (USA) Fighting the tyranny of fusion centers / JTTF harassment and profiling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A86D180.4090404@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:17:20 -0500
From: Rohit Patnaik <quanticle@...il.com>
To: ask.fd@...hmail.com, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: (USA) Fighting the tyranny of fusion centers
 / JTTF harassment and profiling

ask.fd@...hmail.com wrote:
> Was wondering what FD's opinions were on fusion centers.
>
> www.aclu.org/fusion
>
> They are essentially COINTELPRO survellience techniques employed by 
> the FBI-State-Local police to "gather intelligence" on people.
>
> And yeah, you guys fall into the scope. I was wondering what your 
> opinions were on this government surveillance stuff.
>
> Do you have local police (turned domestic intelligence agents) have 
> the sophistication and complexity to understand what you do? Or do 
> you think you'll end up like Ricardo Calixte, and get raided for 
> using Linux. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/boston-college-
> prompt-commands-are-suspicious
>
> I was wondering what you thought abuse of power by the government. 
> And how to stop it.
>
> I think that cryptome and wikileaks is the way to go. If you see 
> the government doing something illegal, do you have the right to 
> break into their system and uncover the evidence? Google "plain 
> sight rule". Sure, if it's not that you'll probably go to jail, but 
> if you hit the gold mine of their corruption, you're set.
>
> Freedom of information?
>
> COINTELPRO was owned by citizen's investigation into the FBI. It 
> was illegal to search the FBI office. However, it offered a 
> sweeping change in legislative policy after, since the evidence 
> could be shown in congress.
>
> Where are all the upset feds? Blow the whistle. You can get your 
> info out 100% safe, Get TOR (http://www.torproject.org/). Post your 
> stories on this list, Wikileaks or Cryptome.
>
> This post was sponsored heavily by n3td3v intelligence
>
> ~~ n3td3v is not antisec. the metasploit method is ineffective.
> ~~ you need to get "the intelligence feed" at 
> www.twitter.com/n3td3v.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>   
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "plain sight rule". As I 
understand it, it means that evidence that a police officer sees "in 
plain sight" may be acted upon without prior authorization. How does 
that apply to me, an ordinary citizen of the USA?

--
Rohit Patnaik

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/