Crime FBI wants widespread monitoring of 'illegal' Internet activity

Just look at post #14
you mean 17?

, Robert Mueller is already trying to ask for more ways to spy on people via internet. I don't think it's right, but that's just me.
If you do no crime you dont have to fear
If you feel disturbed cause somebody can read your chatlogs and stuff you propably fail cause very rarely one of them will be read by a human.

And over all people in politics and FBI aren't all stupid and evil asholes.
 
Yeah I agree; they won't use it for illegal music.. They don't care, they care abut terrorist activity and child pronography.
 
If you do no crime you dont have to fear
You could use this argument to try and justify the government installation of security cameras into your home. It isn't about fear, it is about privacy.
If you feel disturbed cause somebody can read your chatlogs and stuff you propably fail cause very rarely one of them will be read by a human.
This argument could also be used to justify almost any erosion of individual rights. "If it doesn't affect you directly, then you just shouldn't give a shit." Right. Lets just hope that your attitude isn't too common, or we can expect to have telescreens in our homes within the next 3 decades.
Yeah I agree; they won't use it for illegal music.. They don't care, they care abut terrorist activity and child pronography.
Sure, but copyright infringement is still illegal. If, say, some outside group were to apply pressure to the government or FBI to track these things, they could easily do so on the basis that they are illegal.
 
You could use this argument to try and justify the government installation of security cameras into your home. It isn't about fear, it is about privacy.
I know that, thats why I added second argument
This argument could also be used to justify almost any erosion of individual rights. "If it doesn't affect you directly, then you just shouldn't give a shit." Right. Lets just hope that your attitude isn't too common, or we can expect to have telescreens in our homes within the next 3 decades.
ofc not. Always decide for use and cost. For example I dont mind if they check the things I do on my computer if they can catch some criminal.
Sure, but copyright infringement is still illegal. If, say, some outside group were to apply pressure to the government or FBI to track these things, they could easily do so on the basis that they are illegal.
Its pretty much impossible for USA to stop illigal download. They can't shut down the servers cause they aren't in USA. And they can't stop the users cause its not worth to judge about somebody just because he downloaded illegal software for 100$
 
>>I know that, thats why I added second argument

Just because a person isn't reading what you write doesn't mean it's not an invasion of privacy. It's still stored in a database which is going against the right to privacy and they can read it at anytime.

>>ofc not. Always decide for use and cost. For example I dont mind if they check the things I do on my computer if they can catch some criminal.

Would you mind having cameras installed in your house and all over your neighborhood? I mean, it'll stop some crimes from happening, right?
 
Just because a person isn't reading what you write doesn't mean it's not an invasion of privacy. It's still stored in a database which is going against the right to privacy and they can read it at anytime.
k, if the employees can read it in their pauses for fun I'm against it.
na, seriusly:
they won't just let the employees read them. Propably they run it through a bot and ominus things get read by humans.



Would you mind having cameras installed in your house and all over your neighborhood? I mean, it'll stop some crimes from happening, right?

cost- use
Imo this is too much of a cost.
---->
against it
 
ah well, I didn't mean the cost like money (sry for my not-as-good english :/)
I meant like sacrifices you do for security.
 
Okay, Ninja_sheep, TheDamien, sqrage, you have valid points.

Right now the problem is normalizing of the issue. Ninja_sheep sees nothing wrong with the FBI having more access to people's internet information, okay that's fine. The argument is they're likely never going to read your messages etc.

As for the other side, TheDamien, especially sqrage. There's outrage over privacy concerns. Having the FBI look over your shoulder whenever they please might disturb people.

My argument is, the FBI has 97 labs around the US dedicated to catching predators, hackers, and child porn rings. When Mueller gets his way, which is likely to happen, this will grant them the legal power to monitor all Internet Service Providers in the US. They'll likely be looking for keywords of interest due to to the massive amounts of messages sent by users. If you discuss the issues of child pornography over AIM you'll be getting attention.
 
ah well, I didn't mean the cost like money (sry for my not-as-good english :/)
I meant like sacrifices you do for security.

So your arguments only apply to this issue because the miscellaneous cost/use ratio you have decided upon fits an equally arbitrary criteria? It must have occurred to you that other people may value the idea of their online privacy (as limited as it may be) much more, and that their idea of the cost/use ratio of internet-wide spying might be radically different from yours?

It is simply not possible to justify the further infringement of an individuals privacy based on a personal assessment of the "cost/use" factor of a certain security measure.
 
So maybe at the beginning they will use it for child porn and other illegal activities (not illegal downloads) but what's next? They will be able to use your internet against you. Never know when they will come up with crazy laws like they have, or other countries have. Hell, they might remove/null the 1st amendment and take everything bad you've said about bush or the government and use it as conspiracy or treachery.
 
Don't let the goverment walk over your rights, it ends up bad.
 
So maybe at the beginning they will use it for child porn and other illegal activities (not illegal downloads) but what's next? They will be able to use your internet against you. Never know when they will come up with crazy laws like they have, or other countries have. Hell, they might remove/null the 1st amendment and take everything bad you've said about bush or the government and use it as conspiracy or treachery.

I highly doubt it'll ever go that far, but the secret service has investigated a rapper before for saying in his lyrics he'd kill bush, or something along those lines. I don't remember who it was, wikipedia had something about it though. Just kind of funny when they admitted they were watching him. :D

Also if you didn't know, the CCCCTF (part of the fbi) goes after torrent trackers too, and even websites with "obscene pictures of adults in a sexual matter". They might be seeking those too? All of this is very sketchy. I read the entire transcript about Robert Mueller's proposal and it was all very vague. I read somewhere that much of the proposal is classified.
 
So your arguments only apply to this issue because the miscellaneous cost/use ratio you have decided upon fits an equally arbitrary criteria? It must have occurred to you that other people may value the idea of their online privacy (as limited as it may be) much more, and that their idea of the cost/use ratio of internet-wide spying might be radically different from yours?

It is simply not possible to justify the further infringement of an individuals privacy based on a personal assessment of the "cost/use" factor of a certain security measure.
well, ofc I dunno how its exactly is but the chance that any of your privat internet activities gets seen by a human in FBI is nearby 0. And if not its a waste of time and money for the FBI.
If you chat about children pornography or smthing its propably not that bad if a random guy takes a look at it since you propably won't add privat things but your opinion.
The only other way I see to get your chat or whatever read by a human is that you're somehow involved into a crime and you're suspicius. Wich happens... rarely.

I know different people want different privacy but this really won't hurt anybody (or veeeeeeeeeery few).

So maybe at the beginning they will use it for child porn and other illegal activities (not illegal downloads) but what's next? They will be able to use your internet against you. Never know when they will come up with crazy laws like they have, or other countries have. Hell, they might remove/null the 1st amendment and take everything bad you've said about bush or the government and use it as conspiracy or treachery.
I gues the big majority of policians and FBI employees aren't villians. Neither they are stupid.

So maybe at the beginning they will use it for child porn and other illegal activities (not illegal downloads) but what's next? They will be able to use your internet against you. Never know when they will come up with crazy laws like they have, or other countries have. Hell, they might remove/null the 1st amendment and take everything bad you've said about bush or the government and use it as conspiracy or treachery.
Maybe they chase the guys that provide such illegal downloads to shut down the websites but this propably won't effect a privat user (even if he uses torrents). I only heard of one case yet some privat person being punished for illegal downloads and even if there are 100 of them the chance you being one of them is extremly small.
 
Maybe they chase the guys that provide such illegal downloads to shut down the websites but this propably won't effect a privat user (even if he uses torrents). I only heard of one case yet some privat person being punished for illegal downloads and even if there are 100 of them the chance you being one of them is extremly small.

Yes, exactly, the individuals will only be butthurt about loosing their torrents.

The only thing I'll fuss about is if the FBI shakes their finger at me one day for getting someone with goatse. But I'll probably deserve it after all the times I've got people in the past with such pictures. :p
 
Time to boot up my IP banlist programs. No one gets in that I don't want to. :p
 
Depending on how they do it, they'd be monitoring you through your ISP. An IP banlist won't do anything if so.
 
Encrypt all traffic.
If there is no real traffic send dummy traffic.

How you want to beat that?

edit: Too slow :(
 
If you were to encrypt your data transfers for all P2P activity, they're not going to know it's for P2P. For all they know, you could be logging onto Ebay ( as it uses https ), and if they were to decrypt your datastream to see if you're sharing, you could more than likely win the lawsuit due to an extreme abuse of power, and invasion of personal data.

In other words, if this was to take effect, it wouldn't do much to the people who know what they're doing ( Who make up 80%+ of the P2P Networks ).
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • jonas jonas:
    I don't think the Republicans will get rid of income tax, at most lower it a little, mostly for people with 6 figures+. But that's just my opinion
  • The Helper The Helper:
    one can dream
  • Ghan Ghan:
    FairTax would be nice.
  • Ghan Ghan:
    But the electorate would have to demand it and vote people in to do it.
  • Ghan Ghan:
    Government spending, foreign policy, and the southern border are all bigger issues than the income tax right now I'd say.
  • The Helper The Helper:
    For you those are the bigger issues. Cannabis legalization and get rid of Income tax are mine.
  • Ghan Ghan:
    We have so much cannabis up here in Oklahoma. Can't go a block without running into 3 dispensaries. xD
  • The Helper The Helper:
    if the demand is there
  • jonas jonas:
    I think the biggest issue in USA is how divided the country has become
  • Ghan Ghan:
    There's a big split happening in fundamental values that is very worrisome.
  • jonas jonas:
    I think there's always been a split in values. But now there's a split in what reality is. No matter whom you ask, they think a third of the country is insane and wants to destroy the country
  • The Helper The Helper:
    pretty big split
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Saturday!
    +1
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Saturday!
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Dont forget to check out the list of all the recipes on the site at the Recipe Index - I am about to take Ghan up on the offer of making that a site :) https://www.thehelper.net/threads/main-recipes-menu-recipes-index-version-2-0.189517/
  • The Helper The Helper:
    We should add that as part of site navigation
  • Varine Varine:
    I just don't think Trump actually understands how the government works. I'm not going to pretend like I can understand the entirety of government but in my industry he kind of caused massive fucking issues. Tarriffs and the international counters had a pretty significant impact on what I do, it was actually kind of interesting to see though. I live in Idaho so I'm not really concerned with it, it'll be R pretty much the entire way down. We do have ranked choice on our ballot this year though and I DO really care about that. But if we are going to have a federal government we kind of need income tax. They could abolish it and tax states I guess, but then states are just going to raise income taxes. It's not really viable without a very significant and holistic overhaul of how the federal government works, and that isn't something I would expect Trump to do.
  • Varine Varine:
    I don't expect Harris to do it either. I want to see wealth and church taxes, but those also aren't things I'm going to hold my breath for.
  • jonas jonas:
    I mean he definitely doesn't, which is why he had to retract most of his executive orders, didn't manage to get rid of obamacare etc.
  • jonas jonas:
    B
  • jonas jonas:
    Replacing income tax with a wealth tax would be amazing imho, but I can't even imagine that this would happend
  • Ghan Ghan:
    Wealth tax would be a disaster. Imagine having to liquidate retirement accounts because you have a tax bill just for unrealized gains. Or your house goes up in price and you have to sell it to pay the tax bill.
  • jonas jonas:
    I'm not talking about an income tax on wealth gain.
  • jonas jonas:
    we already have a wealth tax on our house, it's called a property tax. I'm talking about extending that to other income-generating assets like private equity, bonds and stocks.
  • jonas jonas:
    I agree that the effect of that would be to depress asset prices, but I think that's a good thing. Makes it easier for hard working young people to grow their retirement income
    +1

      The Helper Discord

      Members online

      No members online now.

      Affiliates

      Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

      Network Sponsors

      Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
      Top