FBI could hack anonymous computers, regardless of their physical location.

[GreezyJeezy]

Just now, PCgamer324 said:

I'd be concerned about people within the law enforcement accessing computers remotely for personal purposes, such as with NSA employees exploiting PRISM to spy on significant others 

well yes i can see that, but you could sue if they did that. id hope it would only be the top FBI people who would have access to remotely access them, not just your average joe cop. but then again people are people and no matter your position you might have the urge to just abuse and snoop around to see what you can find.

[PCgamer324]

8 minutes ago, GreezyJeezy said:

well yes i can see that, but you could sue if they did that. id hope it would only be the top FBI people who would have access to remotely access them, not just your average joe cop. but then again people are people and no matter your position you might have the urge to just abuse and snoop around to see what you can find.

In many of these cases, considering the lack of transparency in these organizations, any potential "victims" of such abuse would likely neither be aware nor have any proof in such a case.  Im also fairly certain technologies such as this will not be well regulated; look at stingray abuse in NYC.  Average Joe is going to be at the controls; higher-ups in such organizations are busy being bureaucrats. 

[GreezyJeezy]

1 minute ago, PCgamer324 said:

In many of these cases, considering the lack of transparency in these organizations, any potential "victims" of such abuse would likely neither be aware nor have any proof in such a case.  Im also fairly certain technologies such as this will not be well regulated; look at stingray abuse in NYC.  Average Joe is going to be at the controls; higher-ups in such organizations are busy being bureaucrats. 

well then they need to fix that, something like that should have a few supervisors making sure they are no abusing and have the stations tracked to see if anyone was abusing. but then again the government isn't ran but the brightest people. nothing can be perfect in life you just have to live and what happens happens for the most part.

[PCgamer324]

4 minutes ago, GreezyJeezy said:

well then they need to fix that, something like that should have a few supervisors making sure they are no abusing and have the stations tracked to see if anyone was abusing. but then again the government isn't ran but the brightest people. nothing can be perfect in life you just have to live and what happens happens for the most part.

I'd rather not stand idly by and let the government run further amuck.  Protestors and activists have fought and won on issues like same sex marriage and civil rights; I'm confident that privacy activists can do the same once the public better understands the situation.  

[79wjd]

8 hours ago, GreezyJeezy said:

now if it was a law passing saying police can now barge in your house unannounced and search and or pull you over for no reason (well they can already do that) and search your car without consent then yes id have a problem, would i go out and protest? no. but would i support them in others ways if possible? yes i would.

Why would that bother you? That's not much different then them remotely accessing your device unannounced and searching through it. 

[GreezyJeezy]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Why would that bother you? That's not much different then them remotely accessing your device unannounced and searching through it. 

Because they are not physical at my house rummageing through my stuff and potentially missplaci get items, it is very different then sitting at a desk thoughts of miles away looking through my computer. That does not interrupt my day like them physically being in my house would.

[apm]

they still could plant evidence on your computer,  just like they could plant drugs while searching your car/house and theres probably no way to proof that its not yours.

[LAwLz]

16 hours ago, GreezyJeezy said:

i get it i got off topic and talked about nike sweatshops. i mean i understand there is a limit, im saying to me remotely accessing a computer is fine and should be be a big deal to the people who have noting illegal on it or have not used it for illegal dealings. now if it was a law passing saying police can now barge in your house unannounced and search and or pull you over for no reason (well they can already do that) and search your car without consent then yes id have a problem, would i go out and protest? no. but would i support them in others ways if possible? yes i would.

 

but if it was like oh if you have illegal music then we will arrest you, well i wouldn't like that for other reasons such as are tax payer money going to house people who didnt want to spend $1.29 for a song.

I really don't see how looking through your computer and looking though your house are any different. Both are about invading your privacy.

I mean, "if you got nothing illegal in your house" then you should be perfectly fine with them looking though your stuff, right? If you are worried that they might misplace something then just pretend like they took photos of everything before they started searching, and then made sure that everything was exactly as it was before they started the search (comparing every single detail in the photos).

 

Or if you want a different analogy, would you be okay with them setting up remote cameras in your house so that they could monitor you 24/7? As long as you aren't doing anything illegal it shouldn't bother you being watched when you eat, sleep, shower and sit at your computer, right?

 

 

Or better yet, PM me all your personal information (logins to all websites, your name, address, SSN, bank details etc). If you got nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any issue with me looking though all your stuff, right?

And if you think I am less trustworthy than the FBI then you would be dead wrong. Quite a few people working for agencies like the FBI and NSA have been caught using their tools to stalk ex-girlfriends and other personal use. In the end, the people working at the FBI are people just like you and me... except they have far more power and next to no accountability for how they use it.

[GreezyJeezy]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I really don't see how looking through your computer and looking though your house are any different. Both are about invading your privacy.

I mean, "if you got nothing illegal in your house" then you should be perfectly fine with them looking though your stuff, right? If you are worried that they might misplace something then just pretend like they took photos of everything before they started searching, and then made sure that everything was exactly as it was before they started the search (comparing every single detail in the photos).

 

Or if you want a different analogy, would you be okay with them setting up remote cameras in your house so that they could monitor you 24/7? As long as you aren't doing anything illegal it shouldn't bother you being watched when you eat, sleep, shower and sit at your computer, right?

like i stated before, the problem is that would interrupt my daily life having to wait for them to rummage through my house and then they might misplace items, with a computer they dont need to drag files out of folders to look at them all everything will be in the same spot.  so in that sense it is very different and if you say well you cant use your computer while they are looking at it, i have a phone i can watch my stocks and and do what i would use my PC for and i have 3 other computers i could use if they didnt look at all 4 at the same time. 

 

and if it was necessary to put cameras in my house that watch me 24/7 i'd be fine, hell thats like extra protection, someone breaks in and they see it so its a win in that sense. but we all know that won't ever happen, them coming without a warrant and going through my house seems way more feasible.

[LAwLz]

Just now, GreezyJeezy said:

like i stated before, the problem is that would interrupt my daily life having to wait for them to rummage through my house and then they might misplace items, with a computer they dont need to drag files out of folders to look at them all everything will be in the same spot.  so in that sense it is very different and if you say well you cant use your computer while they are looking at it, i have a phone i can watch my stocks and and do what i would use my PC for and i have 3 other computers i could use if they didnt look at all 4 at the same time. 

 

and if it was necessary to put cameras in my house that watch me 24/7 i'd be fine, hell thats like extra protection, someone breaks in and they see it so its a win in that sense. but we all know that won't ever happen, them coming without a warrant and going through my house seems way more feasible.

You wouldn't have to wait for them. They would do it every day when you were away, and they would never misplace an item. The deal would be that you leave your key under the welcome mat every day (this is similar to a backdoor), and then a person from the FBI would pick it up, unlock your door, look though all your things and then leave. When you come home again it would look exactly like you left it.

 

Oh right, about the video feed. They would not solve a robbery with it. If you were robbed they wouldn't do anything with it (this is analogues to how they could not stop the terrorist attack in Paris despite the terrorists being known terrorists). They would only use the live feed to collect info about you personally (and your family). You have to remember that they say this is to stop terrorist attacks, not solve them.

 

Also, have you heard about the new trend regarding predicting attacks? What it means is that they try to predict if you are about to do something illegal or not, before you do it. So if you do something other terrorists have done before (let's say brush your teeth as an example), then you will be marked as a suspect. If a terrorist attack were to happen then you could be suspected because you brushed your teeth every day, just like 104 known terrorists did before the attack.

 

 

If you are still convinced that no harm will happen to you because you are innocent then I recommend you watch this lecture. It is very long, but it is very important and doess a great job explaining why the fifth amendment is so important.

 

 

Remember, about 1 in 25 people on death row (sentenced to death) are innocent. That's not counting the ones that have been executed and we never found on that they were innocent by the way, and that is bound to have happened a few times too.

 

You could also watch "Making a Murderer", which is a great documentary about how the police potentially knowingly sentenced someone to prison for attempted murder. They didn't care that they were putting innocent men in jail.

[GreezyJeezy]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

yup were all on a watch list list becase we brush our teeth. i love your logic.

[LAwLz]

Just now, GreezyJeezy said:

yup were all on a watch list list becase we brush our teeth. i love your logic.

Nice strawman.

[Prysin]

On 29/04/2016 at 11:26 AM, Enderman said:

Why would they want to search your computer?

 

i would assume no reason

so you dont need to be concerned...

because they can.

not because they have to.

 

Sometimes, to get a promotion, you just need to lock up enough "terrorists".

 

 

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, Prysin said:

because they can.

not because they have to.

 

Sometimes, to get a promotion, you just need to lock up enough "terrorists".

Reminds me of prosecutors. The FBI might be pretty similar.

 

Prosecutors have a reputation to uphold. If you are known as a "prosecutor that never lose a case" then you are more likely to get hired. If you want to be a "good" prosecutor then you can't lose cases. That's one of the reasons why forged evidence is sadly not uncommon. Prosecutors don't care if the wrong person gets sentenced as long as they personally benefit from it in some way. They don't have to worry about getting in trouble either, since they have immunity and can therefore not be sued or held accountable for any abuse, including using false testimonies and withholding evidence that can prove innocence.

[Katorice]

18 hours ago, GreezyJeezy said:

you can prevent it.  

prevent = keep something from happening.

ok.

 

since this is about preventing we should look at the amount of data they collect vs the amount of arrests made.

if it takes collecting all of the meta data of a country to arrest 10 people in 2 years, is it worth it?

data centers are expensive. payroll is expensive.

 

I think our resource are better spent elsewhere. I know a lot of people suffer at the hands of extremists. I'm not saying "ignore that shit, work on something else" I'm saying the current idea to "prevent" the issue is not efficient; it's wasteful.

 

you guys can argue privacy all you like but the truth is, its a terrible idea.

[GreezyJeezy]

1 minute ago, Katorice said:

prevent = keep something from happening.

ok.

 

since this is about preventing we should look at the amount of data they collect vs the amount of arrests made.

if it takes collecting all of the meta data of a country to arrest 10 people in 2 years, is it worth it?

data centers are expensive. payroll is expensive.

 

I think our resource are better spent elsewhere. I know a lot of people suffer at the hands of extremists. I'm not saying "ignore that shit, work on something else" I'm saying the current idea to "prevent" the issue is not efficient; it's wasteful.

 

you guys can argue privacy all you like but the truth is, its a terrible idea.

and im not saying im for it or against it, if its happening im saying let it happen its not a big deal, if it doesn't happen then its not a big deal. im saying i dont care what they if they have the ability do that becase it won't affect me.

[Katorice]

3 minutes ago, GreezyJeezy said:

im saying i dont care what they if they have the ability do that becase it won't affect me.

that is unfortunate. the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

[GreezyJeezy]

4 minutes ago, Katorice said:

that is unfortunate. the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

on this topic, if it was something worse then yeah i'd disagree but on this its like okay idc 

[2FA]

To those saying don't break the law and that you have nothing to hide, I would like to remind you that the Holocaust was legal in Germany, the USSR's various internment and near-genocidal policies under Stalin were legal, the genocides in Cambodia under Pol Pot were legal. Just the because the government says it fine doesn't mean it's ethically fine, there is no reason why you shouldn't fight back against invasive policies.

[PepsiBandit]

This reminds me of a case of a UK tourist going to america, he tweeted "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America." Destroy America referring to partying in America. Once he arrived he was detained at the airport, questioned and eventually deported again because of that tweet.

Using this kind of assumption they could hack his computer and take the entire content of his computer without warning or notice. This would also not be that surprising based on the UK's acceptance of America spying on UK citizens. 

 

Searching for certain things online out of curiosity could lead to you being denied access to the country in the same way. Your computer would also be hacked and then them running searches for anything they might think could break a law. So it could make it possible for them to search your computer because you searched for "nuclear bomb designs" and then getting a notice about having tormented movies, pirated software or anything else. I doubt they would ever do that but I cant see why they wouldn't be allowed to.

 

I personally find the idea of someone looking at the files on my computer as a greater invasion of my privacy than a police officer searching my house. 

[stconquest]

I guess it's the frog in boiling water analogy that is needed here.  Making a system slowly worse over long periods of time makes each change seem isolated and trivial.  Fast forward twenty years and all those little "insignificant" changes combine to form a "mess".

 

This is only a few thousand people protesting against corporate money (super-pacs and such) in the political system.  It is only 100 members of congress.  It is only a small step. 

 

Without this stuff, no one gets a voice.  Corporate money stays as the principal decision making force in governance and legislature in the USA:

 

I am not sure what drove the congressional members to start the legal proceding, but protests have an emotional effect on an individual.  If the congress member feels empowered to act because they agree with the driving force behind the movement, would they act if there was no movement?  It would be far less likely that they would, not when they are outnumbered in the house.