csandreasen

17 ms·

91.
by csandreasen 11y ago
> Searching a cell phone is much more than what they would get from searching a home. What I was trying to get at was that we interact with other people in a very different manner than we did two decades ago. I don't see any reason
92.
by csandreasen 11y ago
> That backdoor can then be used to acquire my encryption key and decrypt my data, so I think it's still entirely relevant. Putting a backdoor on a device is utterly ineffective way of gathering evidence. If I was taken into custody
93.
by csandreasen 11y ago
I'm not advocating for no encryption on phones. There are schemes that would allow for your data to be encrypted and secure from even the cops except in cases where they have a acquired a warrant. The argument that there is no way to
94.
by csandreasen 11y ago
I don't think the "police have been solving crimes for centuries" argument is very persuasive. Back in 1996, we didn't have people walking around conducting half of all of their communication through a little box that th
95.
by csandreasen 11y ago
Because if there's something really bad on my device, I'd be better off telling the cops "I forgot the password" and risking possible contempt of court rather than them seeing the actual evidence and getting a far worse
96.
by csandreasen 11y ago
> How is that any different to information I store in my head? It's the difference between a 4th Amendment issue and a 5th Amendment issue. Whether or not the police could search your phone used to fall squarely within the bounds of
97.
by csandreasen 11y ago
You're off by several orders of magnitude on your crime statistics. In 2013, 2.3% of households were victims of violent crime, while 13.1% were victims of property-related crime[1]. Do you have evidence to suggest that courts are handi
98.
by csandreasen 11y ago
> Detectives lawfully obtaining a warrant and performing their search within the limitations of that warrant is not a problem. An encryption system installed by the manufacturer that the manufacturer itself cannot decrypt makes it a prob
99.
by csandreasen 11y ago
In this case, though, it's not the people who are hiding it - the device manufacturer is. You've always been free to encrypt your data if you so choose. Nobody is buying a new iPhone because of the encryption; they're buyin
100.
by csandreasen 11y ago
In a sense, all evidence is the result of the criminal's own stupidity and all crimes are solved based on law enforcement getting lucky. If the criminals were smart, they wouldn't leave any evidence behind. The issue from law enfo
101.
by csandreasen 11y ago
No, but it could be construed as permitting federal requirement that personal communications & records be accessible by law enforcement agents who have been issued a warrant based upon probable cause and describing the place to be searc
102.
by csandreasen 12y ago
My post would make a lot more sense had I not forgot to include the link: http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm
103.
by csandreasen 12y ago
The PATRIOT Act and Section 215 has been controversial since way before 2006. You might remember the whole argument that the FBI could collect everyone's library records and look for people reading subversive books. This article is da
104.
by csandreasen 12y ago
Your own link contradicts your definition: In the field of counterintelligence, a double agent (also double secret agent) is an employee of a secret intelligence service, whose primary purpose is to spy on a different target organization,
105.
by csandreasen 12y ago
No, Dropbox is not encrypted on the server, which is the point the parent was trying to make. Theoretically, any Dropbox employee can look at any unencrypted dick pics that you decided to store on their servers, much like how your ISP can
106.
by csandreasen 12y ago
As an aside, I wish HN would give you notifications when someone responds to your comment - I didn't see this for two days and I'm not sure if you're ever going to see this, but anyway... I wasn't trying to imply that my
107.
by csandreasen 12y ago
I think this article glosses over the purpose of the grand jury - the grand jury doesn't vote to convict , they vote on whether or not to indict . The entire purpose is to prevent people from being harassed by prosecutors. They rev
108.
by csandreasen 12y ago
It's really easy to have your information posted publicly without even knowing it. There's a whole industry in the US that buys up public records, cross-references them and sells them as 'background checks'. Buy a hous
109.
by csandreasen 12y ago
> I am a bit bothered by the general response, "They would win this argument if they allowed themselves to tell you everything" that is often given in support of the spies. I don't think they're winning the argument h
110.
by csandreasen 12y ago
Yes, I would consider it out of the blue. Sen Wyden posed follow-up question to something that Gen Alexander said 8 months earlier, and he waited until the day before to pose it instead to DNI Clapper at a committee hearing that 1) was foc
111.
by csandreasen 12y ago
Again, that implies that he had intent to mislead. It's easy to prove that he was wrong - it's a lot harder to prove intent. Wyden decided to ask that question to a senior intelligence official who was not part of NSA (Clapper i
112.
by csandreasen 12y ago
> it seems like the NSA & co. would be gleefully trumpeting such a thing if they knew it. I don't think so for two reasons: 1) they don't talk much about anything unless they absolutely have to for classification and vettin
113.
by csandreasen 12y ago
> Are you saying he now regrets losing his cushy $122k/yr job with Booz Allen, so we can't trust him? No, I'm saying that I wouldn't be surprised if something happened while he was in Hawaii that inspired him to leave
114.
by csandreasen 12y ago
That's a more complicated issue than a simple 'he lied to Congress'. What he said to in front of Congress was flat out wrong - no one's disputing that. Did he lie? That would require an intent to mislead the committee
115.
by csandreasen 12y ago
Though I recognize the thread is pretty much over with, I'll add on to irishcoffee's claim... It's very important to understand what Snowden's motives in evaluating the validity of the NSA documents. None of the documen
116.
by csandreasen 12y ago
I think you're referring to the 'Game of Pawns' video that the FBI put out, which was based on the Glenn Duffie Shriver case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8xlUNK4JHQ
117.
Improving SSL Warnings(docs.google.com)
6 points by csandreasen 12y ago|1 comments
118.
by csandreasen 12y ago
The NSA is subordinate to the Department of Defense - it is part of the military.
119.
by csandreasen 12y ago
I love how they cherry pick quotes out of context to make their point. From the linked article: Ironically, the US government sent a letter to China expressing concern about its new law. "The Administration is aggressively working to
120.
Weibo is dying out(chinachange.org)
1 points by csandreasen 12y ago|0 comments

More ›