Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Amerika, I disappointedFollow

#52 Apr 24 2015 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
As the John Oliver interview with Snowden confirmed: If only the debate on the NSA was phrased in such a way as to know whether or not the government could see your dick pics everyone would care.


Sure. Again though, the response should be "stop assuming security through obscurity works".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Apr 24 2015 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I never said that it had to be the size of the house, but you haven't explained how a room sized cage will help you either. I assume you don't really know either since you've twice avoided actually giving a plausible scenario.


Huh? Three times is the charm? I am not sure hoe how can anyone not ser the benefit of cells not workin in one specific room..


So you don't want your cell phone to work in a specific room in your house... don't bring it in?

And if you are worried about someone else bringing their phone into your "secret room"... well, that special cage didn't solve anything, because what ever device they just brought into the room without your knowledge still works, and is recording or what ever. The cage didn't stop anything. And since they still have it, they leave with that information...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#54 Apr 24 2015 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

You [person of questionable intelligence and unpleasant secondary *** characterics ] clearly never heard of this revolutionary notion called consent of the governed. Don't sweat it, it is new.
Fantasy land..Smiley: lolSmiley: lol


:] i never suspected u to be this cynical Alma.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#55 Apr 24 2015 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
TirithRR wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I never said that it had to be the size of the house, but you haven't explained how a room sized cage will help you either. I assume you don't really know either since you've twice avoided actually giving a plausible scenario.


Huh? Three times is the charm? I am not sure hoe how can anyone not ser the benefit of cells not workin in one specific room..


So you don't want your cell phone to work in a specific room in your house... don't bring it in?

And if you are worried about someone else bringing their phone into your "secret room"... well, that special cage didn't solve anything, because what ever device they just brought into the room without your knowledge still works, and is recording or what ever. The cage didn't stop anything. And since they still have it, they leave with that information...


Depends; the idea is to prevent electronic surveillance ( from afar ), but your point is taken.

Edited, Apr 24th 2015 9:11pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#56 Apr 24 2015 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I never said that it had to be the size of the house, but you haven't explained how a room sized cage will help you either. I assume you don't really know either since you've twice avoided actually giving a plausible scenario.


Huh? Three times is the charm? I am not sure hoe how can anyone not ser the benefit of cells not workin in one specific room..


So you don't want your cell phone to work in a specific room in your house... don't bring it in?

And if you are worried about someone else bringing their phone into your "secret room"... well, that special cage didn't solve anything, because what ever device they just brought into the room without your knowledge still works, and is recording or what ever. The cage didn't stop anything. And since they still have it, they leave with that information...


Depends; the idea is to prevent electronic surveillance ( from afar ), but your point is taken.


Electronic surveillance (from afar) doesn't work that way though. The only thing a Faraday cage does is block RF transmissions across the cage wall itself. So an electronic device inside the cage can't communicate with one outside (assuming it's properly constructed and sealed). So yes, it would prevent someone who's hacked your phone from using it as a remote microphone and listening to you in real time. Of course, you could also just turn the phone off and get the same effect for far less expense. Also, the same person could hack your phone and use it as a recording device, only uploading the recording later once it reestablishes cell contact with a server. This completely bypasses the false security of your Faraday cage (which ironically, just turning the phone off, or not bringing it into the room does protect against perfectly).

This again assumes someone just connecting to your phone and using it as a tap. Other forms of surveillance (like someone planting a recording device and removing it later) aren't prevented. Additionally, sound isn't blocked by Faraday cages. So directional mics aimed at your secret room, or laser mics aimed at nearby windows or the walls of your cage will work just fine. I suppose it really depends on how paranoid you are about people spying on you.

Honestly, the only type of surveillance that I can think of that a Faraday Cage would actually protect you against that couldn't be more easily prevented by just turning off a phone (or not taking it into the room) would be a planted actively transmitting bug. Of course, if anyone is going through the trouble of physically planting a bug in your home, they'll surely notice the cage and simply run a transmitter wire to the outside. How do you think computer equipment inside a cage communicates with stuff outside? It's trivially easy. Again, if you assume someone is really trying to spy on you, the whole Faraday cage idea isn't going to be anything more than a tiny speed bump. You're just creating a false sense of security for yourself IMO (and wasting a ton of money).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Apr 24 2015 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I never said that it had to be the size of the house, but you haven't explained how a room sized cage will help you either. I assume you don't really know either since you've twice avoided actually giving a plausible scenario.


Huh? Three times is the charm? I am not sure hoe how can anyone not ser the benefit of cells not workin in one specific room..


So you don't want your cell phone to work in a specific room in your house... don't bring it in?

And if you are worried about someone else bringing their phone into your "secret room"... well, that special cage didn't solve anything, because what ever device they just brought into the room without your knowledge still works, and is recording or what ever. The cage didn't stop anything. And since they still have it, they leave with that information...


Depends; the idea is to prevent electronic surveillance ( from afar ), but your point is taken.


Electronic surveillance (from afar) doesn't work that way though. The only thing a Faraday cage does is block RF transmissions across the cage wall itself. So an electronic device inside the cage can't communicate with one outside (assuming it's properly constructed and sealed). So yes, it would prevent someone who's hacked your phone from using it as a remote microphone and listening to you in real time. Of course, you could also just turn the phone off and get the same effect for far less expense. Also, the same person could hack your phone and use it as a recording device, only uploading the recording later once it reestablishes cell contact with a server. This completely bypasses the false security of your Faraday cage (which ironically, just turning the phone off, or not bringing it into the room does protect against perfectly).

This again assumes someone just connecting to your phone and using it as a tap. Other forms of surveillance (like someone planting a recording device and removing it later) aren't prevented. Additionally, sound isn't blocked by Faraday cages. So directional mics aimed at your secret room, or laser mics aimed at nearby windows or the walls of your cage will work just fine. I suppose it really depends on how paranoid you are about people spying on you.

Honestly, the only type of surveillance that I can think of that a Faraday Cage would actually protect you against that couldn't be more easily prevented by just turning off a phone (or not taking it into the room) would be a planted actively transmitting bug. Of course, if anyone is going through the trouble of physically planting a bug in your home, they'll surely notice the cage and simply run a transmitter wire to the outside. How do you think computer equipment inside a cage communicates with stuff outside? It's trivially easy. Again, if you assume someone is really trying to spy on you, the whole Faraday cage idea isn't going to be anything more than a tiny speed bump. You're just creating a false sense of security for yourself IMO (and wasting a ton of money).


I see what you are saying; all the silly half-measures are useless - I should really focus on making loss of privacy a real issue to idiots like Alma. Maybe I should post his **** ( or her boobs, hell if I know ) on the intrawebz. Maybe then I could convince him that privacy protection has some merit.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#58 Apr 24 2015 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And as anyone who's actually operated equipment in Faraday cages (that would be me btw) knows, the effect only works when the door is closed. The seal must be complete with no directional gaps (meaning no straight through holes, ones that go around corners work just fine, which is why you can run wires through them). So someone could plant a bug that records stuff in the room, then waits until it can make an RF connection to a remote receiver (which will happen whenever you open the door to the room), then transmits its data.

I suppose you could protect against this by having two doors through two cage layers, either never open at the same time, or correctly out of alignment as to not allow RF to enter the central room, but at this point you've gone well beyond the boundaries of any sort of sane security needs. And again, if someone can gain physical access to the location to plant a bug physically, they can circumvent any sort of security you have in place. It's a lot of effort and expense for very very little actual gain. Your seriously better off just turning off all electronic devices when having a secret conversation, doing so in as central a room as possible, and creating some other noise in the background at the same time (running water, music, etc). Or you could just converse by writing notes to each other and then burning the papers. Or use an etch a sketch! Totally secure one time data transfer methodology IMO. Super easy and fast to erase any stored data, and utterly immune to all forms of electronic and audio listening devices.

As long as we're being silly, of course.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Apr 24 2015 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Maybe then I could convince him that privacy protection has some merit.


No one said privacy protection has no merit. We're saying that you have to weigh the actual protection against the cost and effort required.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Apr 24 2015 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Maybe then I could convince him that privacy protection has some merit.


No one said privacy protection has no merit. We're saying that you have to weigh the actual protection against the cost and effort required.


I must have missed something when Alma stated the following:

Quote:
Fantasy land..Smiley: lolSmiley: lol
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#61 Apr 25 2015 at 6:03 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Angrymnk wrote:
:] i never suspected u to be this cynical Alma.
Good luck carrying a Faraday cage everywhere you go.

Angrymnk wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No one said privacy protection has no merit. We're saying that you have to weigh the actual protection against the cost and effort required.
I must have missed something when Alma stated the following:
Almalieque wrote:
Fantasy land..Smiley: lolSmiley: lol


Almalieque wrote:
When your privacy is being exploited and posted on revenge prawn sites, then you will have a point and the ability to make change.

Yes, you did.
#62 Apr 25 2015 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
Good luck carrying a Faraday cage everywhere you go.


Works for the Peruvian Lightning Tortoise.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#63 Apr 25 2015 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Angrymnk wrote:
:] i never suspected u to be this cynical Alma.
Good luck carrying a Faraday cage everywhere you go.

Angrymnk wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No one said privacy protection has no merit. We're saying that you have to weigh the actual protection against the cost and effort required.
I must have missed something when Alma stated the following:
Almalieque wrote:
Fantasy land..Smiley: lolSmiley: lol


Almalieque wrote:
When your privacy is being exploited and posted on revenge prawn sites, then you will have a point and the ability to make change.

Yes, you did.


So that we are clear. You acknowledge that privacy is important; just not as important as security?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#64 Apr 25 2015 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
There are much cheaper ways of remaining private than this Faraday's cage idiocy.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#65 Apr 25 2015 at 9:00 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
No. It is situational. There are scenarios where privacy trumps the perceived security threat. This scenario is not one of them.
#67 Apr 25 2015 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I don't think that is true, based on:

Timelordwho wrote:
He's referred to as "a champion of "[the public's] right to privacy" not the "privacy" of un-elected bureaucrats of what is ostensibly a democracy to conduct operations against it's law abiding electors in the service of their private agendas. Snowden wasn't complaining about utilizing intelligence information about terror cells against terrorists. Nor, in fact, Is Russia.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#68 Apr 25 2015 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No. It is situational. There are scenarios where privacy trumps the perceived security threat. This scenario is not one of them.


And who, pray, gets to decide what trumps what when?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#69 Apr 25 2015 at 11:52 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
TLW wrote:
I don't think that is true, based on:
Given the fact that he simply released a bunch of information that he admittedly didn't even read, nor actually "faced the man" like an actual champion, says otherwise.

angrymnk wrote:
And who, pray, gets to decide what trumps what when?
I am unable to provide a particular person or entity, but in this case, it *appears* to be the government. You either want an entity to protect your daily lives from attacks or you don't. Allowing people to openly plot terror attacks is the opposite of protection. Contrary to popular belief, you WILL have to give up some form of privacy for protection because there is literally no way to monitor a terrorist without violating an innocent person's privacy to determine that s/he is indeed a terrorist.
#70 Apr 25 2015 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:
I don't think that is true, based on:
Given the fact that he simply released a bunch of information that he admittedly didn't even read, nor actually "faced the man" like an actual champion, says otherwise.

angrymnk wrote:
And who, pray, gets to decide what trumps what when?
I am unable to provide a particular person or entity, but in this case, it *appears* to be the government. You either want an entity to protect your daily lives from attacks or you don't. Allowing people to openly plot terror attacks is the opposite of protection. Contrary to popular belief, you WILL have to give up some form of privacy for protection because there is literally no way to monitor a terrorist without violating an innocent person's privacy to determine that s/he is indeed a terrorist.


So you do not know who decides?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#71 Apr 25 2015 at 12:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
So, did you not read my response?
#72 Apr 25 2015 at 12:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, did you not read my response?


It was moronic. I can deal with arguments if/when presented ( vide Gbaji, Joph, Samira.. ) and if they make sense.

If you are just telling me that I have to submit, because I have to do it then it is hard for me to take it seriously. Sorry?

If you want me can try again.. who decides what is more important?

Edited, Apr 25th 2015 2:07pm by angrymnk

Edited, Apr 25th 2015 2:12pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#73 Apr 25 2015 at 12:19 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Angrymnk wrote:
If you are just telling me that I have to submit, because I have to do it then it is hard for me to take it seriously. Sorry?
You don't have to do submit. That's the point, whatever you do or whatever any politician tells you, the same will continue.

angrymnk wrote:

If you want me can try again.. who decides what is more important?
See post 69
#74 Apr 25 2015 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
I figured I will help you out a little bit. I do not have as much time left. This is what happens when one person has access too much power.

Why do you think this particular person is the right person to decide the privacy vs protection quandary?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#75 Apr 25 2015 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Angrymnk wrote:
If you are just telling me that I have to submit, because I have to do it then it is hard for me to take it seriously. Sorry?
You don't have to do submit. That's the point, whatever you do or whatever any politician tells you, the same will continue.


Never heard of Bernard Shaw, have you?

Edited, Apr 25th 2015 2:31pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#76 Apr 25 2015 at 12:31 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I'm not sure if this were posted here before. But this. Good luck with your fight.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 213 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (213)