Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon Plans a Computer System That Would Peek at Personal Data of Americans
New York Times

Posted on 11/09/2002 9:31:25 AM PST by rs79bm

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-144 next last
To: honway
Does anyone know what a peer to peer system is?

What Is P2P...And What Isn't
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:y5UHD8Jv2xkC:www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/11/24/shirky1-whatisp2p.html+peer+to+peer+system&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Not being a techie, I don't pretend to understand this in any detail--but at least this one is written in English :)

121 posted on 11/13/2002 8:01:32 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Speaking of biometrics (your #110), the camel's nose is under the tent:

'Recycled' refugees swindle UN of millions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786204/posts?

It won't be long before they find an excuse to have the whole world scanned...all in the name of preventing fraud.

And after Americans applaud this move by the UN against the Afghanis, how will they justify refusing to be scanned themselves?

122 posted on 11/13/2002 8:11:37 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
And after Americans applaud this move by the UN against the Afghanis, how will they justify refusing to be scanned themselves?

Congress is working on legislation REQUIRING states to record such information in relation to driver's licenses.

Congress eyes uniform driver's license standards

123 posted on 11/13/2002 8:18:03 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: honway
Does anyone know what a peer-to-peer system is?

Simply put, it's when two computers communicate directly with each other. With a web browser, there are MANY computers acting as clients that are communicating with the web server. Peer-to-peer is a more of a one to one relationship, with the two computers acting as both client AND server. Napster is an example of a peer-to-peer system, although it is an example of a many-to-many relationship.

For more info, click the link below..

What is peer-to-peer?

124 posted on 11/13/2002 8:29:03 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker; Lion's Cub
Thanks guys. I have learned something about peer-to-peer systems. So if I am on a Napster-like site, am I authorizing full access to all my computer files to anyone else on the Napster-like site?
125 posted on 11/13/2002 8:38:48 AM PST by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: rs79bm
When should I expect the Gov't to come to my front door and start the anal probe?
126 posted on 11/13/2002 8:43:33 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honway
Thanks guys. I have learned something about peer-to-peer systems. So if I am on a Napster-like site, am I authorizing full access to all my computer files to anyone else on the Napster-like site?

What OS are you using, and how is it configured? If it isn't one that enforces an access control list with specific permissions for specific users on specific folders (read: Windows 9x), or if you do not use access controls to restrict remote users to accessing only those specific folders you're sharing via Napster on a read-only basis, then you're basically hanging the "Come One, Come All" sign out.

127 posted on 11/13/2002 8:49:00 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: rs79bm
This may come as a surprise, but I want to avoid another "creationist" or "evolution" endless debate (I hate 'em), so I'll keep it simple:

I have no problem with this concept if there is a built-in death penalty, non-negotiable and automatic, for anyone in or out of government abusing the system or the data.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

128 posted on 11/13/2002 8:59:28 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Thanks. I need to hit the books and learn more about access controls. I am using Windows ME.
129 posted on 11/13/2002 9:02:25 AM PST by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: honway
The short answer: Windows ME has no access controls. You need to use NT or Win2K.
130 posted on 11/13/2002 9:07:42 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Thanks for your #123--I'd forgotten all about that. The assault is coming on so many fronts, it's hard to remember them all.
131 posted on 11/13/2002 9:12:52 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: honway; Poohbah
I think Napster allows you to deny access to files on your computer by allowing you to designate which directory your "shared" files will reside. It is only that folder that is designated as shared that is accessible from other computers I believe. There may even be a way to disable file sharing on your local machine all together, I'm not sure.
132 posted on 11/13/2002 9:27:15 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
Thanks for your #123--I'd forgotten all about that. The assault is coming on so many fronts, it's hard to remember them all.

You're welcome. It's hard to fathom this coming about, as it DOES appear to indicate a march towards a "1984" type of society.

133 posted on 11/13/2002 9:29:23 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
It's hard to fathom this coming about, as it DOES appear to indicate a march towards a "1984" type of society

It seems to be inevitable in our current situation. Freedom only works in a basically moral, Judeo-Christian society.

Thanks to the open borders and the rapid influx of immigrants (both legal and illegal), we now have Balkanization and no concensus whatsoever over values and morals. As a result, the government has chosen to monitor everyone to avoid the appearance of discrimination and more infighting in government agencies...

134 posted on 11/13/2002 9:50:54 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
Thanks to the open borders and the rapid influx of immigrants (both legal and illegal), we now have Balkanization and no concensus whatsoever over values and morals. As a result, the government has chosen to monitor everyone to avoid the appearance of discrimination and more infighting in government agencies...

It appears that has been the goal all along. Why else flood our land with those who are only here to reap those benefits that we have as a Nation worked and fought hard and for, where many of our fathers before us fought in wars and made the ultimate sacrifice in order to safegaurd our way of life? H1-B workers have no great love for this country nor it's People. Many are openly hostile to Americans, and could care less about the Principles this Nation was founded upon. They were raised to love THEIR country, not ours.

The immigration policies we have today invites terrorists into our country. It is only a matter of time before something else happens, only reinforcing the notion that we NEED restrictions on our basic freedoms in order to prevent another terrorist act...

135 posted on 11/13/2002 11:32:50 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Your presentation as stated does not lead me to conclude that the current administration is plotting to F* with our privacy.

Will you agree that *if* the information in the article is accurate, then this massive surveillance system should be opposed?

136 posted on 11/13/2002 11:52:13 AM PST by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: honway
Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include: Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.

Of course, I'd assume that anyone who posts on FR is under surveilance...

137 posted on 11/13/2002 1:45:58 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
RE: Unnamed sources

Although you are correct, there's several unnamed Pentagon sources, the blurbs that relate to them are irrelevant in relation to the accurary of this article. They are simply fluff.

Private data that requires a warrant to access will still need a warrant to collect in a database and for searches. If you can prove differently, then you've got a story to tell

Well, you do know that information that was supposed to be discarded in relation to "instant checks" by LAW IS still being held and utilized, right?

Court to Hear Gun Info Privacy Case

Now if they can violate the law there, who's to say they won't do it with the TIA system?

I may be mistaken, but I believe warrants are not used now to access Internet mail through government servers.

Refer to post 116 for info on THAT...

Also if I'm not mistaken, the internet was invented under DARPA(with no help from Gore) and the backbone is still not privatized.

Yep, BBN under DARPA developed the concepts and protocols for the Internet, which was originally named ARPANET. And of course, the government can pull a few tricks with it if and when it'd like to...

Also, who owns the internet backbone, the devices of which our e-mail passes??

Various companies, including BBN and Sprint.

Regards!

Regards back to you.

138 posted on 11/13/2002 2:01:13 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: All
FOXNEWS is discussing this topic right now!
139 posted on 11/13/2002 2:17:39 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Will you agree that *if* the information in the article is accurate, then this massive surveillance system should be opposed?

Any information in this article that turns out to be true *and* is a violation of the following must be opposed.

Amendment V -- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

140 posted on 11/13/2002 7:17:41 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-144 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson