Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Report: Unhackable e-passports hacked within minutes

   (Aug 7, 2008 - 2:17 PM)

   Anyone wanting to implement anything "unhackable" will be hacked in no time. It's no surprise that any government issued technology solution is weak at best. How much will we waste on such nonsense?
   
   Canada's Next: http://canadianpress.goo...k6G6Nu_rKonXCcX2eASIrNQ

2. Comment - Microsoft: Run Word in 'Safe Mode'

   (May 25, 2006 - 1:38 AM)

   So while you girls are bickering, your users are being infected since you told them they would be safe if they just used winword.exe /safe. Duuuhhhh...
   
   This would only work if you also told your users to keep Word running all day, every day until the patch is in place. You would have to modify the File Type Associations for all Word Docs, and other files that may automatically open with Word.
   
   So all of you smartasses out there just b****ing about shortcuts and other nonsense...you could have just lost your job cause you told the CEO to run winword.exe /safe. HA!

3. Comment - AT&T Sued for Opening Network to NSA

   (Feb 7, 2006 - 7:55 AM)

   OK since you are a moron, I'll sound it out for you:
   
   "President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and other intelligence experts claim the USA Patriot Act gives them the authority to listen in on domestic conversations, as does the 2002 congressional authorization to use military force against terrorism."
   
   "Gonzales told the NewsHour that as a part of the post-Sept. 11, 2001 authorization to use military action against terrorism, "the Congress intended for the president to engage in all of those activities that are fundamentally incidental to waging war, including electronic surveillance."
   
   Now this electronic surveillance applies to everywhere EXCEPT WITHIN the United States because there is a law that EXPRESSLY FORBIDS it without a FISA warrant.
   
   You should read the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/...igence_Surveillance_Act

4. Comment - AT&T Sued for Opening Network to NSA

   (Feb 1, 2006 - 12:09 PM)

   It is NOT legal under the Patriot Act. Where does it say that in the Patriot Act? OOOhhh...you mean the President's interpretation of the Patriot Act. Well that's just wrong...see the long post below that states THE ONLY LAW specific to warrentless wiretapping of US Citizens.
   
   You're an idiot just for giving in to the almighty Patriot Act argument...

5. Comment - AT&T Sued for Opening Network to NSA

   (Feb 1, 2006 - 11:53 AM)

   For All of you Morons who are just spouting information you hear from the President/TV/Your Mom:
   
   We are all aware that they have the right for domestic spying, as long as they follow the procedures that are set in law. The laws are laws for a reason, we just can't ignore the ones we don't like...if the laws are bad, then there are ways to change them. There are checks and balances for this very reason...the administration knows that all domestic spying is dependant on judicial review, and they didn't like it so they just tried to keep it to themselves. Now they just want to make up laws based on VERY LIBERAL interpretations of the Patriot Act.
   
   It's abundantly clear to me that Mr. Pres didn't obtain his required, retroactive warrants because the administration know they're wrong.
   
   First, you should read this WHITEHOUSE press release:
   
   http://www.whitehouse.go...2004/04/20040420-2.html
   
   President Bush:
   Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
   Kleinshans Music Hall
   Buffalo, New York (2004)
   
   "... Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
   
   I guess he can just change his mind if he doesn't like the rules...
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/...igence_Surveillance_Act
   
   Scope and limits
   For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). However, the sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)).
   The statute limits its application to US persons. A US person includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US.
   The code defines "foreign intelligence information" means information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.[2]
   
   Provisions of FISA
   Electronic surveillance
   
   Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.
   
   Without a court order
   The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is: only for foreign intelligence information[2] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [3] or their agents; and there is NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WILL ACQUIRE THE CONTENTS OF ANY COMMUNICATION TO WHICH A UNITED STATES PERSON IS A PARTY.[4]
   
   Authorization during times of war
   
   Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. declaration of war by the Congress. [13].
   
   (b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
   
   (1) any person other than a United States person, who—
   (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
   (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
   
   If the administration somehow comes up with the many thousands of warrants, then I'd say no problem to the whole thing. It stinks to high heaven, otherwise trying to keep it super-secret wouldn't be necessary, now would it...
   
   How about doing a little research of your own, psycros. Quit being a fascist...