# Have you made efforts to privatize your email



## skieur (Feb 18, 2014)

Lawyers and many of the people I do business with have words at the bottom indicating the confidentiality of the email and if you have received it by mistake, erase it immediately etc.

Nevertheless, they seem to have made no effort to truly privatize and secure their email practices. Considering that America On-Line and Yahoo have been hacked, that may be concerning to some people particulary since a third company was hacked for the Yahoo info. THE QUESTION is why did a third company have Yahoo information that belonged to Yahoo customers? Bulk warrants for email from private courts for the FBI and other organizations have also made email even more public.

So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?

I should point out that there are ways of ensuring that your email is private and secure.


----------



## ronlane (Feb 18, 2014)

I use gmail and we all know that Google has no privacy and they collect information on everything. So I just work accordingly.


----------



## runnah (Feb 18, 2014)

I live a very boring life so no need.


----------



## skieur (Feb 18, 2014)

ronlane said:


> I use gmail and we all know that Google has no privacy and they collect information on everything. So I just work accordingly.



So have you looked at the privacy policy for gmail.....very interesting, or considered using www.startpage.com which is google engine searching with complete privacy?


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 18, 2014)

skieur said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I use gmail and we all know that Google has no privacy and they collect information on everything. So I just work accordingly.
> ...



Ok, is it just me or does the fact that we have tons of guys here wandering the streets taking pictures of people who are often unaware that they are even being photographed discussing privacy a little ironic?


----------



## ronlane (Feb 18, 2014)

skieur said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I use gmail and we all know that Google has no privacy and they collect information on everything. So I just work accordingly.
> ...



I only read privacy policies when I am having trouble going to sleep. (Which is never). It's not something I am concerned about.


----------



## skieur (Feb 18, 2014)

runnah said:


> I live a very boring life so no need.



Then you must be one of the few that do not get annoyed by advertisements, spam, and emails to send money, invest, buy Viagra etc.


----------



## skieur (Feb 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...



Not at all, those photographs at least do not contain your name, address, and a full profile of your background, friends on Facebook, tweets, email etc.


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 18, 2014)

I use iCloud Mac mail and don't give it out but only to a few select. No spam or advertisement.


----------



## skieur (Feb 19, 2014)

Yes, iCloud Mac has very good privacy and security features including encryption.


----------



## 71M (Feb 19, 2014)

skieur said:


> So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?


 Not public as such no; private, sometimes for official eyes only - confidential. Available to be scanned by _big brother_, if ever necessary - sure, that's how the world is. I have no need for encryption.


----------



## skieur (Feb 20, 2014)

71M said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?
> ...



If you read the privacy policy of some of the sites, you will find that personal information from email and other sources is almost public since it is shared by companies and routinely given to the authorities as a result of bulk warrants.
Then there is hacking. Yahoo which was recently hacked said it was done to a third company but the question is WHAT is a third company doing holding information from Yahoo members. American On Line and Bell were also hacked for customer info. as well as Target, Sears, and others.

You are fortunate if you have not been hit by some of the consequences yet. My sister had her bank account cleaned out by someone posing as her. Another friend had her identity stolen including credit card fraud, etc.

To say, one has no need for encryption is a little like saying one does not need locks on the doors of their house because they have never been broken into. At the same time though, like locks on doors, encryption is only one means of ensuring a reasonable level of privacy and security on the net. There are several others.


----------



## 71M (Feb 20, 2014)

skieur said:


> If you read the privacy policy of some of the sites, you will find that personal information from email and other sources is almost public since it is shared by companies and routinely given to the authorities as a result of bulk warrants.



Personally, I'm unconcerned about that.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 20, 2014)

If you are so worried about your gmail or yahoo email being public
then get a private email account

gmail is used to outsource alot of companies.  Google does the firewall, etc and are able to dedicated more resources to it.
Corporations that buy less costly firewall, antivirus strategies etc are more likely to get hacked more easily .... so outsource.

putting the privacy paragraph on the bottom just allows them some legal foothold if someone else keeps it and uses it against them.  kinda.


----------



## SnappingShark (Feb 20, 2014)

I use gmail. Have done for many years.
I actively made an effort to get removed from every single mailing list I was on, and then started subscribing again based on new interests and life changes.
Singe doing that, my spam has reduced to maybe 10 per week, and they are always contained in the spam folder. Not bad.

On the other hand, I use outlook.com and only use it to buy (a lot) from reputable online sites (amazon etc), but have never received ANY spam since day 1.

Have I read any T&C? Yes. Google's.
Any concerns? No.


----------



## skieur (Feb 20, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> If you are so worried about your gmail or yahoo email being public
> then get a private email account
> 
> gmail is used to outsource alot of companies. Google does the firewall, etc and are able to dedicated more resources to it.
> ...



Got lost in whatever you are trying to say for example: "gmail is used to outsorce a lot of companies"???????
Google does NOT have a firewall so "Google does the firewall" ??????

and the last sentence?????


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 20, 2014)

Pretty much the same thing as said about getting pictures stolen.  Life is a chance and then we die.  Okay, that was not helpful.


----------



## skieur (Feb 21, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Pretty much the same thing as said about getting pictures stolen. Life is a chance and then we die. Okay, that was not helpful.



"Life is a chance" certainly and much more so, if you don't take any control over it.

Your personal information on the net is public, if you have made no effort to keep it private or confidential.  There is no chance about it.  Personal information is also sold on the net and advertisers, insurance companies, the tax man and others put it to good use from their point of view.

Insurance companies for example used to hire private investigators to follow a supposed accident victim around to see if he was really seriously injured.  Now, all they do is a Facebook search. Your friends may be interested in the renovations you are doing to your house, but the tax man is even more interested.  If you ever get involved in a lawsuit (usually lasts 5 years) or divorce, there will likely be one heck of a lot of people interested in your presence on the net and anything that you communicated about the case.  

I repeat that taking control over your privacy on the net is not chance, but it does require some effort and action on the part of the individual.


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> Then you must be one of the few that do not get annoyed by advertisements, spam, and emails to send money, invest, buy Viagra etc.



I don't mind and plus my erections have never been firmer and more satisfying.


----------



## skieur (Feb 21, 2014)

runnah said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Then you must be one of the few that do not get annoyed by advertisements, spam, and emails to send money, invest, buy Viagra etc.
> ...



Mmm, yes, I see that in your profile. More Viagra ads for you.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> Lawyers and many of the people I do business with have words at the bottom indicating the confidentiality of the email and if you have received it by mistake, erase it immediately etc.
> 
> Nevertheless, they seem to have made no effort to truly privatize and secure their email practices. Considering that America On-Line and Yahoo have been hacked, that may be concerning to some people particulary since a third company was hacked for the Yahoo info. THE QUESTION is why did a third company have Yahoo information that belonged to Yahoo customers? Bulk warrants for email from private courts for the FBI and other organizations have also made email even more public.
> 
> ...


Honestly, the most shocking thing in this post to me is that AOL still apparently exists.  

Most of the people I work with have those disclaimers too.  I guess "disclaimer" is the wrong word...  What do you call that?  A warning?

And yet they still drop their business card into every "raffle" bucket they see.  (Which, sometimes, are nothing more than a way for someone to collect a bunch of email addresses from a specific set of people to be later used for "spear phishing".)

Me, mine is all public.  Well, I don't "advertise" it, but I don't make any attempt to hide it either.  [edit - if we're talking about social networking sites too - Facebook, friends only, since I ***** about work sometimes.  Google+, all public (but I try to be careful what I post, lol).  LinkedIn, I rarely use - I have a profile but only look at it like once a month...]

I always assume that people can see my email address though, or that if I use it to register for something, that it will be shared/sold.

edit
At least Google's spam filters seem to be pretty accurate.  It does a pretty good job of filtering out the crap from what I really want to see.  I've never had to check the Spam folder for an important email that I missed, and I don't get junk mail in my inbox.  So, whatever they're doing, it works.


----------



## skieur (Feb 21, 2014)

runnah said:


> I live a very boring life so no need.



I see, so you have few assets, no investments, no medical conditions, no insurance problems, no tax complaints or registered appeals, no on-going legal affairs, no business issues with clients or competitors, no problems with sloppy, incompetent renovation contractors, no sons or daughters with separation agreements or pending divorces, no stressed-out family members, no incompetent nursing homes looking after relatives etc. etc.


Lucky you!


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 21, 2014)

I absolutely DO NOT associate my personal email to anything online. I have a couple backup email accounts that I made specifically for logging on to forums. If someone wants to hack those and see all the spam in it go ahead. Have at it.


----------



## skieur (Feb 21, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Lawyers and many of the people I do business with have words at the bottom indicating the confidentiality of the email and if you have received it by mistake, erase it immediately etc.
> ...



Google however shares its info. with the government every 3 months and with third parties.

The best email service is:

1. outside the North American continent, not in England,  and not subject to US snooping.
2. does not record your ISP number and location
3. does not record content or searches or uses top grade encryption


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> Internet security specialists say that there is no reason whatsoever to use an email address that directly indicates your name.


I agree, and mine doesn't.  My personal one anyway.  At work, it follows the typical "FirstName.MiddleInitial.LastName@Company.com"...


----------



## skieur (Feb 21, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> I absolutely DO NOT associate my personal email to anything online. I have a couple backup email accounts that I made specifically for logging on to forums. If someone wants to hack those and see all the spam in it go ahead. Have at it.



That is a good starting point.  I hope you have not intentionally or not, linked your real name to your usernames in accounts or used the same username in all accounts.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 21, 2014)

They sent these out at work a while ago.  (They may be slightly dated)

Social Networking "Smart Cards"...  (It's mostly common-sense type stuff.)

Facebook:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7FnNzrIGSXSVWI2Y211RE5IZ0U/edit?usp=sharing

Google+:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7FnNzrIGSXSeGRWNGltZFAwQzA/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> I see, so you have few assets, no investments, no medical conditions, no insurance problems, no tax complaints or registered appeals, no on-going legal affairs, no business issues with clients or competitors, no problems with sloppy, incompetent renovation contractors, no sons or daughters with separation agreements or pending divorces, no stressed-out family members, no incompetent nursing homes looking after relatives etc. etc.   Lucky you!



Lol actually that is a 100% accurate.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > I absolutely DO NOT associate my personal email to anything online. I have a couple backup email accounts that I made specifically for logging on to forums. If someone wants to hack those and see all the spam in it go ahead. Have at it.
> ...



That's where a ton of people get overly concerned about the wrong thing. It's already too late. If you own a car, house, have credit, or have ever been to the DMV &#8230;...etc. your information is already out there. It's out of your control. Sure, you can add some layers to sift through for someone looking for your info, but it's there and available for anyone that wants it no matter how awesome your password is.


----------



## skieur (Feb 22, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > EIngerson said:
> ...



Actually any of the information you mention may be out there but most of it is incomplete and not up-to-date.  My bank is in one city but I live 2 hours away in a village.  My credit is in another location.  Having a common name can also help create confusion.  Even the police have contacted me related to my name but not me.  My DMV is blank of any infractions or accidents and changes in employment are not up-to-date either.

The challenge for the individual who wants to retain their privacy is to isolate any of the personal info. that is out there.  Passwords can be managed and computer generated and a different one for every use. E-mail can be masked and encrypted.  If you shop on the Internet you can even mask your credit card info. when making purchases.  Use several usernames and ensure that they cannot be linked to your real name.  Don't fill out forms with info. that no company or no site needs to know.

Your name and address has limited value to some advertisers, organizations, etc. but if they can start putting a profile together on age (filled out for some site registrations), assets, politics, family info., medical issues, etc. then all the info. becomes much more useful.

If you are all over the Internet with your real name and the same username of all forums, then web tracking bugs, cookies, etc. can constantly track you and follow you with advertising and scams.  On the other hand, if you don't use your real name on the net at all and use different usernames with slightly different "identities" then it becomes difficult if not impossible to LINK apparent personal info. together and relate it to ONE person.


----------



## skieur (Feb 22, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> They sent these out at work a while ago. (They may be slightly dated)
> 
> Social Networking "Smart Cards"... (It's mostly common-sense type stuff.)
> 
> ...



Very worthwhile but even better is use www.startpage.com instead of Google and like companies encrypt your Facebook info. that you want to keep more private.

By the way, I also learned while on the net, that Google searches are of LESS THAN 1 percent of the Internet.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 22, 2014)

skieur said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



We'll agree to disagree.


----------



## skieur (Feb 23, 2014)

BrightByNature said:


> I use gmail. Have done for many years.
> 
> Have I read any T&C? Yes. Google's.
> Any concerns? No.



I found that Google was getting less useful for finding the info. I was looking for and the fact that it was sharing/selling info. with/to advertisers and the government was the straw that broke the camel's back. I also noted that the Google approach was that of a single search engine.

www.startpage.com was outside the North American continent, totally private, stripped off personal info. from searches, and then submitted it to Google, so Google without the invasion of privacy.

Then I found an even better one that instead of a single search engine like Google, it searches 5 search engines at the same time as well as the net, while preserving privacy and security of personal info. That site is www.ixquick.com.

Google searches less than 1 percent of the web, while www.ixquick.com gets into the deep web beyond that 1 percent.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 23, 2014)

Every single thing you put out there electronically, should be treated as if it was printed on a billboard across the street from the oval office.


----------



## skieur (Feb 23, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Every single thing you put out there electronically, should be treated as if it was printed on a billboard across the street from the oval office.



True, but you can use the equivalent of "door locks".  They don't prevent someone from getting in but they can sure create one heck of a lot of discouragement.

I found an email site with customized security and extremely advanced, above military grade encryption that the government has not broken.  Its location, out of North American also helps, in a country with very strong privacy laws.  Their info. indicates that they will keep their security and privacy programming at top level.


----------



## IByte (Feb 23, 2014)

**** 3 email accounts and I use one as a spambox.


----------



## skieur (Feb 23, 2014)

IByte said:


> **** 3 email accounts and I use one as a spambox.



I hope none of those email accounts lead back to your true one and talking about using one as a "spambox", there actually is a site called trashmail.com

There are several approaches:

1. deal with an email service that does NOT record the ISP of mail coming in and does not store any data/content
2. use a disposable email account to register for an email account that you intend to use.
3. use a proxy when accessing your email account
4. encrypt your email
5. mask your email use


----------



## IByte (Feb 23, 2014)

skieur said:


> I hope none of those email accounts lead back to your true one.
> 
> There are several approaches:
> 
> ...



Lol no using tor while my virtual proxy is being built. Esxi 5.5 is the only way to go for a hypervisor.


----------



## skieur (Feb 24, 2014)

IByte said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I hope none of those email accounts lead back to your true one.
> ...



Tor projects are funded by the department of defense, so word around is that a back door way around the encryption was inserted into the program.  That seemed to be confirmed when the FBI with a bulk warrant seized a very large amount of TOR data.

Whether this sort of snooping concerns you or not is another matter.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> Lol actually that is a 100% accurate.


 Same here.  If you have more than two of those things going on in your life  then damn, I'm sorry.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 24, 2014)

Ha..  There is no such thing as email privacy/security.

I suggest if your worried about it..  Read up on a company called 'Lavabit' and see what they say.

Lavabit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lavabit

If somebody wants to see what your doing online... they will find out. 

PS.  My company attaches a disclaimer automatically to all outgoing email.  Not for security.. but for legal reasons.


----------



## skieur (Feb 24, 2014)

TheLost said:


> Ha.. There is no such thing as email privacy/security.
> 
> I suggest if your worried about it.. Read up on a company called 'Lavabit' and see what they say.
> 
> ...



I have email privacy/security partly because my service is OUTSIDE the US (and North America for that matter) and not subject to US law. It cannot provide data to anyone legal or not because it does NOT record data, does NOT record ISP numbers and uses a far stronger encryption system than Lavabit.
Moreover it cannot provide any encryption keys because it does not have any.


----------



## IByte (Feb 25, 2014)

skieur said:


> Tor projects are funded by the department of defense, so word around is that a back door way around the encryption was inserted into the program.  That seemed to be confirmed when the FBI with a bulk warrant seized a very large amount of TOR data.
> 
> Whether this sort of snooping concerns you or not is another matter.



Nothing you can do when the gov is downloading the entire net.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 25, 2014)

skieur said:


> I have email privacy/security partly because my service is OUTSIDE the US (and North America for that matter) and not subject to US law. It cannot provide data to anyone legal or not because it does NOT record data, does NOT record ISP numbers and uses a far stronger encryption system than Lavabit.
> Moreover it cannot provide any encryption keys because it does not have any.



Once you send an email... its not private any more.  Have you ever done a 'traceroute' to see all the points your data visits? 

Welcome to the 'Bumblehive'..... This place is literally in my back yard (i'm on the other side of the hill in the picture)..





NSA Utah Data Center - Serving Our Nation's Intelligence Community

Love this quote from the site!!


> _We are happy to report that we "dodged a bullet" recently when President Obama gave his January 17th speech on NSA "reforms". We were all ready to provide complete transparency about the current operating status of the Utah Data Center, but happily now it looks like we won't have to!_



There is no such thing as email privacy..

Note to any government official reading this:  I 100% support your efforts!  And if you are hiring Sr. Software Developers (aka.. Spy's) to work at the Bumblehive i would love an Interview!  PM me for my contact information


----------



## skieur (Feb 25, 2014)

IByte said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Tor projects are funded by the department of defense, so word around is that a back door way around the encryption was inserted into the program. That seemed to be confirmed when the FBI with a bulk warrant seized a very large amount of TOR data.
> ...



Sure there is.  Only STORED personal information can be downloaded or hacked.  Get rid of your STORED personal information on the the Internet and avoid adding to it and you keep your privacy and secure your credit and banking use.


----------



## skieur (Feb 25, 2014)

TheLost said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I have email privacy/security partly because my service is OUTSIDE the US (and North America for that matter) and not subject to US law. It cannot provide data to anyone legal or not because it does NOT record data, does NOT record ISP numbers and uses a far stronger encryption system than Lavabit.
> ...



Certainly, but you encrypt the email as well as the keys using a customized version of NTRU, strip off the ISP and send it through a VPN.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 25, 2014)

skieur said:


> IByte said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



hahaha... so not true.  Put me on your network for a few hours and i can re-assemble all your network traffic (emails, web browsing.. anything you do online) into a nice little presentation for you.


----------



## skieur (Feb 25, 2014)

TheLost said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > IByte said:
> ...



I doubt that, IF all cookies, web bugs, temporary files, indexes, and the thousands of tracks routinely put on computers by one's activity have been routinely erased by specialized software.  Then the use of VPNs and encryption scrambles things even more.


----------



## skieur (Feb 25, 2014)

TheLost said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I have email privacy/security partly because my service is OUTSIDE the US (and North America for that matter) and not subject to US law. It cannot provide data to anyone legal or not because it does NOT record data, does NOT record ISP numbers and uses a far stronger encryption system than Lavabit.
> ...



I tend to suspect that  they are looking more for the "creative" mindset of successful hackers rather than software developers.


----------



## skieur (Feb 27, 2014)

Let me apologize for some the computer jargon that some readers may not have understood.

Bottom line is that it is possible to use free software to get totally private and totally secure email free from snooping from advertisers, hackers, or the government.

As far as why anyone should be concerned, well relating the terrorism SPIN as the reason,  to the reality of the abuse of powers, between 2009 and 2012 computer snooping was used in England on 500 occasions to investigate dog foulers and violators of the smoking ban.  If people keep casually giving up their rights to privacy, they won't have any privacy or any freedom.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 27, 2014)

skieur said:


> If people keep casually giving up their rights to privacy, they won't have any privacy or any freedom.


And then we will have nothing left to worry about, so instead of looking over our shoulder all the time, we'll finally be able to get on with our lives and trust our benevolent (or is that malevolent?) government to keep us safe.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 27, 2014)

I do trust open source software a lot more for this sort of thing though.  I do pretty much only use open source software though, so I admit that I'm biased.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 27, 2014)

skieur said:


> Let me apologize for some the computer jargon that some readers may not have understood.  Bottom line is that it is possible to use free software to get totally private and totally secure email free from snooping from advertisers, hackers, or the government.  As far as why anyone should be concerned, well relating the terrorism SPIN as the reason,  to the reality of the abuse of powers, between 2009 and 2012 computer snooping was used in England on 500 occasions to investigate dog foulers and violators of the smoking ban.  If people keep casually giving up their rights to privacy, they won't have any privacy or any freedom.




China is reading this and laughing. Lol.


----------



## skieur (Feb 27, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > If people keep casually giving up their rights to privacy, they won't have any privacy or any freedom.
> ...



Given the nature of present governments anywhere, I would not trust any of them.:thumbdown:


----------



## skieur (Feb 27, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Let me apologize for some the computer jargon that some readers may not have understood. Bottom line is that it is possible to use free software to get totally private and totally secure email free from snooping from advertisers, hackers, or the government. As far as why anyone should be concerned, well relating the terrorism SPIN as the reason, to the reality of the abuse of powers, between 2009 and 2012 computer snooping was used in England on 500 occasions to investigate dog foulers and violators of the smoking ban. If people keep casually giving up their rights to privacy, they won't have any privacy or any freedom.
> ...



Point is that the reason for snooping has nothing to do with terrorism or giving the police more controls to deal with the declining crime rate. It has more to do with power, control, and potential intimidation. In the Ukraine, they used the GPS on the cellphones of the protestors to locate them in the square and sent them text messages indicating that they were being put in effect on an enemies list.

Moreover I am sure that the Chinese are laughing at the ready acceptance of a lot of Americans of their loss of privacy and freedom to supposedly provide safety from terrorism.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 27, 2014)

skieur said:


> [...] even better is use www.startpage.com instead of Google [...]


I've used that before.  I seem to remember it being the default search engine for some browser I was using at one point.  Maybe Iceweasle (Debian project compliant version of Firefox), not sure.  Probably something else though, since iceweasle is more-or-less the same as Firefox.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 27, 2014)

skieur said:


> Point is that the reason for snooping has nothing to do with terrorism or giving the police more controls to deal with the declining crime rate. It has more to do with power, control, and potential intimidation. In the Ukraine, they used the GPS on the cellphones of the protestors to locate them in the square and sent them text messages indicating that they were being put in effect on an enemies list.  Moreover I am sure that the Chinese are laughing at the ready acceptance of a lot of Americans of their loss of privacy and freedom to supposedly provide safety from terrorism.


  I get what your trying to educate people on. But in doing so, you've gone from internet privacy to operational security. Jon Smith the the normal guy's personal information is not the target for international data collectors. No self respecting terrorist is going to waste their time and energy getting that data when all they need is a flight itinerary or the complacency of your everyday mall security guard. I'm sorry but a random text from Sammy the terrorist  saying I'm on the "enemies list" doesn't strike fear In my heart. I know I'm on his enemy list, I'm an infidel. I joined that side of the fight willingly.   My point is, I'm not in the Ukraine protesting. I'm sure when things are that bad in my country, cell phone privacy will be the least of my worries. And here's a fun fact. If there's a guy getting rich coming up with ways to keep you private, there are ten guys getting twice as rich invading that privacy. So stop trying to convince people they are in control. Right about now I consider that spam. Lol.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 28, 2014)

Wow, I typed that on my phone. I apologize to everyone for how painful that was to read.


----------



## skieur (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> I do trust open source software a lot more for this sort of thing though. I do pretty much only use open source software though, so I admit that I'm biased.



The approach of net security people is to take open source encryption and related software and then modify it to strengthen it's power.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

skieur said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > I do trust open source software a lot more for this sort of thing though. I do pretty much only use open source software though, so I admit that I'm biased.
> ...


And if they do not release the source code for their modified version, they would be in violation of the license (usually).


----------



## skieur (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > [...] even better is use www.startpage.com instead of Google [...]
> ...



www.ixquick.com from the same company is even better in that unlike google it searches 5 search engines as well as the net at the same time and of course you can customize your searches and avoid the ads.


----------



## skieur (Feb 28, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > So stop trying to convince people they are in control. Right about now I consider that spam. Lol.
> ...


----------



## skieur (Feb 28, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Point is that the reason for snooping has nothing to do with terrorism or giving the police more controls to deal with the declining crime rate. It has more to do with power, control, and potential intimidation. In the Ukraine, they used the GPS on the cellphones of the protestors to locate them in the square and sent them text messages indicating that they were being put in effect on an enemies list. Moreover I am sure that the Chinese are laughing at the ready acceptance of a lot of Americans of their loss of privacy and freedom to supposedly provide safety from terrorism.
> ...


----------



## skieur (Feb 28, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > My point is, I'm not in the Ukraine protesting. I'm sure when things are that bad in my country, cell phone privacy will be the least of my worries. And here's a fun fact. If there's a guy getting rich coming up with ways to keep you private, there are ten guys getting twice as rich invading that privacy. So stop trying to convince people they are in control. Right about now I consider that spam. Lol.
> ...


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

skieur said:


> Closer to home than the Ukraine, there was a lot of completely abusive and in some cases illegal use of power by both the provincial government and the police during the G20 summit in Toronto. There is also some indication that the government and police would like to be able to identify dissidents, activists, protestors, etc. in order to "pre-arrest" them before any possible action or protest takes place. There has already been movement in that direction in both Canada and the US. You don't find anything ANTI-DEMOCRATIC in such action??


"Some indication", lol.  It's no surprise at all.

Habeas corpus is dead.  I've seen that first hand, lol.

You can't buy a cell phone without FBI backdoors in it anymore.

"Thought crime" has been a real thing for a long time now.  "Hate crimes", for example - they are always crimes that are already crimes, so it is the "being racist" part that elevates it to "hate crime" - essentially, it makes being a racist a crime.  I don't like racism, but I don't think that a "belief" (even one I don't agree with) should be illegal.  It is the thought, not the action that is being judged.  The action was already illegal.

How much will you put up with before you start to say "police state"?


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> "Some indication", lol.  It's no surprise at all.  Habeas corpus is dead.  I've seen that first hand, lol.  You can't buy a cell phone without FBI backdoors in it anymore.  "Thought crime" has been a real thing for a long time now.  "Hate crimes", for example - they are always crimes that are already crimes, so it is the "being racist" part that elevates it to "hate crime" - essentially, it makes being a racist a crime.  I don't like racism, but I don't think that a "belief" (even one I don't agree with) should be illegal.  It is the thought, not the action that is being judged.  The action was already illegal.  How much will you put up with before you start to say "police state"?



Hate crimes are crimes that contain an already-illegal crime, therefore being racist is not a crime.   

That's why the KKK and the American Nazi Party are allowed to exist.  

It's the whole "infringing on the rights of others in the name of racism" thing that gets people into a tizzy.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > "Some indication", lol.  It's no surprise at all.  Habeas corpus is dead.  I've seen that first hand, lol.  You can't buy a cell phone without FBI backdoors in it anymore.  "Thought crime" has been a real thing for a long time now.  "Hate crimes", for example - they are always crimes that are already crimes, so it is the "being racist" part that elevates it to "hate crime" - essentially, it makes being a racist a crime.  I don't like racism, but I don't think that a "belief" (even one I don't agree with) should be illegal.  It is the thought, not the action that is being judged.  The action was already illegal.  How much will you put up with before you start to say "police state"?
> ...


You just contradicted yourself.

The KKK and the American Nazi Party are allowed to exist because it is their first amendment right to do so.

If I kill someone, that is murder.  If I killed that person because he was black, it is a hate crime.  Murder is illegal either way.

"Say whatever you want as long as it doesn't offend anyone."  Is that what you're saying?

edit
In that (I hope I don't have to say, hypothetical) situation, the person would be charged with murder (an action), but also racism (a thought).


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> You just contradicted yourself.  The KKK and the American Nazi Party are allowed to exist because it is their first amendment right to do so.  If I kill someone, that is murder.  If I killed that person because he was black, it is a hate crime.  Murder is illegal either way.  "Say whatever you want as long as it doesn't offend anyone."  Is that what you're swaying?



...No. I'm just saying that hate crimes are crimes regardless of what it's called, so they aren't thought crimes.

If people were being arrested because they said they wish all Mexicans would go back to Mexico, then it would be a thought crime.

It's all semantics since a crime is a crime is a crime regardless of what it's called. 

The term hate crime historically has just been a term used to denote intent, so certain issues such as malicious race-fueled attacks and homophobic criminal acts could be better recognized and brought into the spotlight.

It has generally been very useful for the advocacy of progressive ideals. 

Sometimes the media yells hate crime without enough evidence to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but overall I think the use of the term has been beneficial.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> It's all semantics since a crime is a crime is a crime regardless of what it's called.


Until it's time for sentencing.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

The rest of that though, Habeas corpus being dead, backdoors in phones, whatever - what you agree, don't have an issue with it, what?

IMO, they are all important issues...


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > It's all semantics since a crime is a crime is a crime regardless of what it's called.
> ...



It's like that with a lot of things. Why does manslaughter have a different sentence than someone who committed outright murder? I mean, a person is dead either way, right?

Whether we like it or not, our judicial system takes into account the intent of the perpetrator as well as other case-specific details.

The somewhat subjective way in which our judicial system views cases is contradictory to the ideal of an impartial justice system, but human crime is often very complex and can't be easily sentenced using simple criteria.

It's FAR from a perfect system, but I don't think anyone has come up with anything better so far.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> The rest of that though, Habeas corpus being dead, backdoors in phones, whatever - what you agree, don't have an issue with it, what?
> 
> IMO, they are all important issues...



I think it's important, but I'm already stressed enough into daily life without throwing paranoia on top of the mix.

I do wish the press would quit being polarized little *******s and start doing their duty as watchdogs.

But that's also a noble and likely unattainable ideal at this point.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

Habeas corpus is a big one for me.  If you are being detained, you should at the very least be told why, IMO.

I was arrested once, never charged, never arraigned, They just "let me go" after half a week.  I never saw a judge, I was never told why I was being held...

And that is NORMAL now.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


Manslaughter is accidental, murder is intentional.  Significant difference.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Habeas corpus is a big one for me.  If you are being detained, you should at the very least be told why, IMO.
> 
> I was arrested once, never charged, never arraigned, They just "let me go" after half a week.  I never saw a judge, I was never told why I was being held...
> 
> And that is NORMAL now.



Well I agree in that regard. There's so much police-fear nowadays because people never know if the law will be upheld or I'd it will be abused.

It's a scary scenario that's becoming more common


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...



There's also a difference between a robbery-homocide and a homocide where the perpetrator carved "***" into the chest of the victim.

It might not seem significant, but I don't think those two people should be sentenced identically just because the outcome was the same.

The question "Why was this person killed" is relevant in all cases and should be considered.

That's an extreme example though. There's still a lot of people yelling hate crime as a reflexive reaction.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

I suppose I could have gotten an attorney and tried to sue the city or something, but to be honest I was just happy to be free and get back to work while I still had a job.  "Sorry, I couldn't come in the last few days - I couldn't call in because I was in jail." doesn't usually go over so well.

I did lose what little respect I had left for the police though.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


Well ... of course.  That's basically the same as the manslaughter/murder thing.

A - Someone did some **** and someone died, although killing that person was not the "objective".
B - Someone went out of their way to make someone dead.


I don't really see what you are saying that is different than what I just said - a few posts up, the accidental/intentional one.


Now, lets say that the victim was black or Jewish, or just "not white", and the assailant was a known neo-nazi.  Do you think he would get a "fair" trial?


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Well ... of course.  That's basically the same as the manslaughter/murder thing.  A - Someone did some **** and someone died, although killing that person was not the "objective". B - Someone went out of their way to make someone dead.  I don't really see what you are saying that is different than what I just said - a few posts up, the accidental/intentional one.  Now, lets say that the victim was black or Jewish, or just "not white", and the assailant was a known neo-nazi.  Do you think he would get a "fair" trial?



I cannot say if the trial would be fair without seeing the evidence. This is why appeals exist.   

If the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime, then yes, I think he would get a fair trial.  

Fairness on an objective level can only be determined by looking at the process.    

Whether or not the jury give a fair verdict would be up for debate since humans are fallible and hold their own biases.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 1, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > Well ... of course.  That's basically the same as the manslaughter/murder thing.  A - Someone did some **** and someone died, although killing that person was not the "objective". B - Someone went out of their way to make someone dead.  I don't really see what you are saying that is different than what I just said - a few posts up, the accidental/intentional one.  Now, lets say that the victim was black or Jewish, or just "not white", and the assailant was a known neo-nazi.  Do you think he would get a "fair" trial?
> ...


I think that you are missing the point and also have an idealized view of how things really work.

I think that in a situation like that the defense would be hard pressed to get an unbiased jury.

The "evidence" doesn't really matter for this "exercise".  A known racist killed a minority - that's the only thing you know.  Fair trial, yes or no?

(I do find it interesting though that you could only say that he would definitely get a fair trial if you already knew he was guilty.  How fair is that?)


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 1, 2014)

skieur said:


> So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?



Since the Homeland Security Act was passed into law, everything you post, email or say has been monitored and checked, if anything you said was questionable... it was flagged. There is no private and confidential electronic communication.


----------



## skieur (Mar 1, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Habeas corpus is a big one for me. If you are being detained, you should at the very least be told why, IMO.
> 
> I was arrested once, never charged, never arraigned, They just "let me go" after half a week. I never saw a judge, I was never told why I was being held...
> 
> And that is NORMAL now.



Well, coming soon you will probably be arrested for what you put in an email message to a friend.


----------



## skieur (Mar 1, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > And here's a fun fact. If there's a guy getting rich coming up with ways to keep you private, there are ten guys getting twice as rich invading that privacy. So stop trying to convince people they are in control. Right about now I consider that spam. Lol.
> ...


----------



## skieur (Mar 1, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?
> ...



Only if your ISP is in the United States or subject to US law.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 1, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Josh66 said:
> ...


No.  Manslaughter is the killing of a human being without the prior intention to kill ie. premeditated murder.  Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing another person in the heat of passion and in response to adequate provocation.  Involuntary manslaughter is negligently causing the death of another person.


----------



## skieur (Mar 19, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?
> ...



Actually THERE IS.  Outside of the North American continent and England, there are some countries NOT affected by the US Homeland Security Act, and therefore they do NOT hold on to any personal or confidential information.  The icing on the cake so-to-speak is that email is encrypted so it canNOT be monitored either.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 21, 2014)

Smells like dead horses in here.


----------



## skieur (Mar 21, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> Smells like dead horses in here.



I guess it's time you left and stayed away.


----------

