Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They'd have to wake my computer up to take any data from it, and I'd see the connection in the log. Also, port 80 is forwarded to a different computer. How could port 80 possibly go to mine??? What could happen is I install a Trojan Horse that SENDS my data. It is physically impossible for my computer to take a port 80 connection with my router forwarding 80 to a different computer.

----------


Sure:D
They can copy everything on your drive and everything attached to your computer and you will have no idea.
You think they need to wake your computer or anything will be listed in any logs?
Lol:D
People are so naïve and have no idea the power their government has over them. There is no privacy, you really think they cant get any data they want from your computer any time they want?
 
You're also missing the point -- if your system is comprised through a third party gaining root access, you're SOL. Logs are just that -- logs. They can be edited. Also, ever hear of wake for network access...

Point is, though not broadly applicable to the whole populace as the foilers would believe, its certainly possible to do it on a person to person basis, thus the loss of confidential data from what would be considered "secure" computers.

How do you think secrets get stolen? A magical fairy with a wand?

Secrets get stolen from insecure setups. I'm not using Windows XP Media Edition here. I understand that I could have a Trojan Horse on my computer, but I would see network activity if it was happening simply because the upload speeds for other computers would be really slow with the government wasting my bandwidth. And if my computer was set to WOL, I would hear it wake up randomly for the government to access my files.
 
They'd have to wake my computer up to take any data from it, and I'd see the connection in the log.

Nope, anytime you have something updated, your files get copied; whether it be Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash Player, operating software updates, downloaded applications where you're asked to provide your admin password; there's all kinds of ways for the government to get your files copied.
 
Sure:D
They can copy everything on your drive and everything attached to your computer and you will have no idea.
You think they need to wake your computer or anything will be listed in any logs?
Lol:D
People are so naïve and have no idea the power their government has over them. There is no privacy, you really think they cant get any data they want from your computer any time they want?

"You think they need to wake your computer"
Yes, I do. Computers don't magically transfer data in their sleep :rolleyes:
 
He didn't know what he was doing, especially when it came to foreign policy, and he seemed like too much of a puppet without any real agenda. I did, however, think he was more financially smart than Obama, and I was NOT impressed with the reasoning people gave for not liking him. "He's old and white." Racist.

Yes, I pretty much agree with you. I was not very happy with any of the candidates. I didn't like Romney's defense policies or his social agenda, but I thought He would have been better for the economy. He was an absolutely terrible politician. I kind of liked that. Not much of a choice really, Obama/Romney. I held my nose and went with Romney for the sake of our economy. Having only two viable political parties sucks. It's like team sports, you choose your team and shake those pom pom's. What a joke.
 
Nope, anytime you have something updated, your files get copied; whether it be Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash Player, operating software updates, downloaded applications where you're asked to provide your admin password; there's all kinds of ways for the government to get your files copied.

And this happens instantaneously? They send all that data, terabytes, in a few seconds? My processors stay cool with nothing extra running on them, using idle amounts of electricity as they send all of my data from all of my hard drives to the government? Most importantly, do you have any evidence of this? You're so full of BS it's hilarious.
 
Secrets get stolen from insecure setups. I'm not using Windows XP Media Edition here. I understand that I could have a Trojan Horse on my computer, but I would see network activity if it was happening simply because the upload speeds for other computers would be really slow with the government wasting my bandwidth. And if my computer was set to WOL, I would hear it wake up randomly for the government to access my files.

Who said they're going to copy your whole hdd and your cats folder? A word document is a few kb. You're not going to see a network impact from that unless you're rocking 56k still.

Again, I'm not saying the government is mass downloading your HDD. I am saying that they could access your computer so long as it's connected to the Internet. Additionally, any data that leaves your network is not safe, regardless if you think your TOR, VPN, or favorite SOCKS proxy is going to save you.
 
"You think they need to wake your computer"
Yes, I do. Computers don't magically transfer data in their sleep :rolleyes:

You have no idea the stuff governments can do with technology and how easy it is for them to spy on anyone they feel like.
If you think you can stop them by using a firewall, looking at logs or by putting your computer in sleep mode then I admire your false sense of security:D
 
Who said they're going to copy your whole hdd and your cats folder? A word document is a few kb. You're not going to see a network impact from that unless you're rocking 56k still.

Yes, theoretically, I could be spied on with a Trojan Horse on my computer, but the firewall will not under and circumstance allow incoming connections to my computer except on -here it is- ports 56, 6000, and 45.
 
The problem with the republican party (and the tea party for that matter) is their obsession with excessive defense spending and outdated religious ideals.

Come to terms with those two topics and you have a very viable party. People understand the democratic party is spending too much but they are scared of electing a hard core religious person to such a powerful position.

Romney tried to downplay it a lot but in the end he's still Mormon.

Agree. I hate having only two viable parties though. It really creates an "us against them" mentality instead of having an open forum where new and better ideas are actually introduced and discussed.
 
If I provided you evidence on an open forum, how long do you think I'd be alive?

The same amount of time you'd be alive informing people on an open forum that they should avoid installing updates to avoid being spied on by Big Brother. Night night, troll. I'm going now.
 
Perfect demonstration of paranoia here. The risk of being shot and die from domestic/social violence is magnitudes greater than being hit by terrorists. Ignorance is bliss.

Paranoia no; more like pragmatism. What solution would you suggest? Your argument is as shallow as the case of a smoker trying to tell you that smoking is somehow not that bad, because you're much more likely to die from smog and air pollution.

Ignoring the problem of terrorism is what I would call a perfect example of 'ignorance is bliss.'

Try to sell your argument of 'worrying about terrorism' as being paranoid, to the surviving relatives of those who died on 9/11, or to the relatives of those who died in the Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, or Aurora in 2012, or Boston just recently, for that matter, not to mention those 26 (including 20 innocent children) who were gunned down at Sandy Hook in Newtown, CT. last December.

A comparison of the total number of people dying during such acts of terror, against the number of people being knifed or shot to death domestically, is a weak argument at best, especially in light of the potential number of casualties that could be inflicted during a successful terror strike. It's also of little consolation to the grief-stricken survivors.

Downplaying terrorism as paranoia, is where the real problem lies. It's time we had a frank discussion about this, rather than diminishing these acts, and continuing on as before, and burying our heads in the sand.

As I said in the part of my post, that you chose not to include, I have as much mistrust of the Fed as the next guy, and loathe this whole intel gathering of ordinary law abiding citizens as much as anyone, but these info gathering missions are simply a necessary evil, a choice of the lesser of two evils, and a must-have tool for the intelligence agencies charged with our protection, if they are to have a snowball's chance in hell, of being able to prevent future terrorism.
 
Ironic, considering the US Govt. is one of the least trust worthy organisations. Ever.

I work for them. Don't trust them. Jesus man, if only I could tell you fools the half of it. I think any prior military intel folks would say the same.
 
Agree. I hate having only two viable parties though. It really creates an "us against them" mentality instead of having an open forum where new and better ideas are actually introduced and discussed.

It's annoying. Also, just because I support the Republican Party more, people assume that I wanted Romney to win and that I agree with everything he said. They assume that I want abortion to be illegal (which I don't, just not eligible for government funding, and that's not for religious reasons). There are so many government seats available, and president is only one of them.

One of the things I like about Obama is that he is sometimes willing to go against his voter base. But he also sometimes does things just to appease them, which ticks me off.
 
Last edited:
prism.jpg


Hmmm, Apple was added in Oct. 2012 — mid-release cycle for both OS X and iOS.

As we gear up for WWDC, I wonder if the ability for NSA to spy on us while we use Apple's services is going to be one of the 200+ touted features of OS X and iOS, or just one of the under-the-hood "improvements"?
 
Yes, theoretically, I could be spied on with a Trojan Horse on my computer, but the firewall will not under and circumstance allow incoming connections to my computer except on -here it is- ports 56, 6000, and 45.

There's no virus installed on your computer. They suck it out of your hard drive whenever you do an update or download anything. And they don't leave a single trace behind.
 
Paranoia no; more like pragmatism. What solution would you suggest? Your argument is as shallow as the case of a smoker trying to tell you that smoking is somehow not that bad, because you're much more likely to die from smog and air pollution.

Ignoring the problem of terrorism is what I would call a perfect example of 'ignorance is bliss.'

Try to sell your argument of 'worrying about terrorism' as being paranoid, to the surviving relatives of those who died on 9/11, or to the relatives of those who died in the Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, or Aurora in 2012, or Boston just recently, for that matter, not to mention those 26 (including 20 innocent children) who were gunned down at Sandy Hook in Newtown, CT. last December.

A comparison of the total number of people dying during such acts of terror, against the number of people being knifed or shot to death domestically, is a weak argument at best, especially in light of the potential number of casualties that could be inflicted during a successful terror strike. It's also of little consolation to the grief-stricken survivors.

Downplaying terrorism as paranoia, is where the real problem lies. It's time we had a frank discussion about this, rather than diminishing these acts, and continuing on as before, and burying our heads in the sand.

As I said in the part of my post, that you chose not to include, I have as much mistrust of the Fed as the next guy, and loathe this whole intel gathering of ordinary law abiding citizens as much as anyone, but these info gathering missions are simply a necessary evil, a choice of the lesser of two evils, and a must-have tool for the intelligence agencies charged with our protection, if they are to have a snowball's chance in hell, of being able to prevent future terrorism.

I guess we should all put on our brown shirts and go door to door then. That way we could find them terrorists easier huh ?

Anything for Der Homeland.
 
Yes, theoretically, I could be spied on with a Trojan Horse on my computer, but the firewall will not under and circumstance allow incoming connections to my computer except on -here it is- ports 56, 6000, and 45.

How does that stop someone, again? You either don't have Internet access or you're just re-routing ports on your router or in-line connection. That doesn't change the content of said packet unless your monitoring and filtering packets live... a packet on port 45 would just get pushed out through whatever port you desire but won't change it's content.

Don't get me wrong here -- I'm not siding with Merkava here, but the very weakness of an Internet connection is the connection itself. Don't be fooled.
 
How does that stop someone, again? You either don't have Internet access or you're just re-routing ports on your router or in-line connection. That doesn't change the content of said packet unless your monitoring and filtering packets live... a packet on port 45 would just get pushed out through whatever port you desire but won't change it's content.

Don't get me wrong here -- I'm not siding with Merkava here, but the very weakness of an Internet connection is the connection itself. Don't be fooled.

I'm fully aware of the ways by which my data could be sent, but it's not possible for me to get an incoming connection on those ports. Just connecting my computer to the Internet will not allow spying if it's behind a NAT router. If I browse sites or download data in other ways, theoretically, it could happen through something running on MY computer. I'm not trying to say that with my current setup as a regular user, someone could not target me and take that one Wor... Pages document.

But the statement that doing nothing but connecting your computer to the Internet behind a NAT router and not downloading anything that could run could allow your data to be stolen is not true, unless there is something on the computer or the router already.
 
The same amount of time you'd be alive informing people on an open forum that they should avoid installing updates to avoid being spied on by Big Brother. Night night, troll. I'm going now.

No you misunderstand, I'm not telling anyone to avoid doing software updates, all I'm saying is that if you have anything on your hard drive that you don't want the government knowing about, then don't ever connect that specific computer to the internet. For example, I've got one MBP that has never ever been connected to the internet.
 
Wish I could comment but we have colleagues in our office from DC this week so I'm going to keep my juicy comments to myself.

I've got bills to pay.
 
Last edited:
This is what I was talking about. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that the government could easily silence your anti-government rants (and those of others such as Alex Jones) if it had this kind of surveillance but mysteriously hasn't? Meanwhile, should I expect a van to show up and put a bullet through my head if I criticize Obama?

I'll just say right now that his stimulus package was stupid and failed, and he isn't doing anything to stop the racism his party has already made required by public schools. Let's see what happens "when" the government reads what I just wrote after it wades through quadrillions of other messages on the Internet.

----------



Yeah, but what does that have to do with what I just asked? You can't claim to know how many terrorist attacks (if any) have been thwarted by TOP SECRET government agencies.

Note: I know this is long, but I'm very curious about how people feel about what I have to say as this is a personal subject.

I only caught your rebuttal to these arguments, and I've got to say we share the same sentiments. Coming from a family entrenched in the intelligence community, I sort of grew up with the understanding that this sort of oversight, this type of government "spying" was a matter of national security and somewhat of a necessity. I guess none of this comes as a shock to me, since it has been going on since before I was born (as I was told). The government is just utilizing the technology that's available to the best of their abilities now, much as we allowed. That doesn't make it bad, that doesn't make it good. It's just the norm.

After 9/11, we allowed the government (and by government I mean much more specifically the national intelligence community) into our lives a little more, hoping that they would act responsibly and be held to the highest of standards in their efforts to combat, well, enemy combatants to the US. That also came with the added responsibility of ensuring us that we as a people had some semblance of privacy even though the "government" (I.E. at the national security level, a group of well vetted individuals who are deemed upstanding, responsible, and forthright in their actions) was the sole entity allowed to "breach" it. I can tell you firsthand that the people who are collecting and analyzing this information, are not of the same genetic makeup as the ones making Star Trek spoofs and wasting taxpayer money. They do their job, and they have no concern for the average citizens social life or daily meanderings (which, if you're reading this, probably means you) except to protect it. The few that are put in that position are there to help the average person, not hurt. And very few of them are stupid, very few of them have intentions to sabotage average lives with the information and power they're given.

A big reason for some of these oversight policies is to weed out irregular activity and take a look at it before deeming it unworthy (since even the majority of irregular activity is not a threat to the US) and throwing it into a filter that ensures it doesn't come back again (like when someone says "That's the bomb" and isn't inferring an explosive device intended to kill people, but rather that someone's Air Max 95s are sick).

The phone records that the government wants are a byproduct of wanting to alleviate some of the red-tape involved in trying to thwart real-time threats. By requiring a warrant and a subpoena for certain things (like a terrorist changing the location of a bombing because he feels the authorities have caught up to him), the government is very limited in their ability to act with the speed that the internet, or terrorists/bad guys/whatever you wanna call them do or does. It's a game of cat and mouse to protect people, and when it comes to major threats like terrorist attacks that aren't lone wolves, but are ones enacted by other military organizations against the United States (like 9/11), the intelligence community is the only group with the resources to help thwart these attacks quickly and effectively. But Intel has to abide by laboring laws of the general populace that serve a HUGE purpose in the general populace, but not in wartime against warriors.

(It's why there's a separate court for the intel community, because the two disagree so often and the standards are different. The intelligence community is at war against people with war funds and expertise, not petty theft crooks)

The intelligence communities rules are bound to an archaic (albeit in MOST cases effective) judicial system that doesn't allow for real-time response to save people's lives. Warrants take time, subpoenas take time, lives get lost in the process. You think the people that harm you are functioning with a restrictive government to look out for? No, they're operating in a free-ish society where just about anyone could walk onto the metro and obliterate the place because it's actually a pretty free society. The government already having the data to sift through in certain scenarios ensures that they'll probably still be playing catch up, but the head start that "terrorists" get won't be as huge.

It doesn't even mean that this whole wire/data tapping thing is right or necessary, it's just that I don't understand why it is that NOW people are upset by it. The information about the Patriot Act was readily available upon it's signing; where were the complaints then? Then, when news reports broke about how impacting the legislation that their elected congressmen/women had signed was, where were the revolts?

Even after 9/11, when I was a boy, I remember people talking about the cost of security, and how much people were willing to give up, being discussed at my house. Republicans and Democrats felt the effects of that attack, and neither side nor the general populace wanted it to happen again. That's where a lot of this stems from. And if this information hadn't been leaked and was rather discussed in an open forum, I think things probably wouldn't be as nuts as they are now. Allow a little logic and a full scope of detail and circumstance to affect your opinion, not a rapid "Blame Bush! Blame Obama!" mentality. It's kind of silly.

A quick edit that I wanted to add on to further extrapolate on the point I'm trying to get across. Even if we consider every.single.person that these policies and oversight directly affected, it makes up less than 1% of the entire US population. For 99% of the people moving about the United States, they will feel absolutely no effects from this except being more acutely aware of the policy now. Nothing is going to change from yesterday. People's anti-government blogs can still function, MSNBC will still be able to sprout off at the mouth, Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh will still go on his tirades as will Alex Plant. Nothing changes, you're still as free as you can be in a society that has a government constantly trying to ensure that random massive attacks aren't carried out daily against citizens like in war-torn countries. (As an aside, with lone wolf terrorists and murders going on killing sprees, they're just now finding out how difficult that can be).

You could argue that the government should have said something about it, but I can argue just as much that the mass hysteria involved in not having an open, unbiased forum in which to explain their reasoning behind enacting these policies is the exact reason why they didn't.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.