Have you made efforts to privatize your email

[skieur]

[...] 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.

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]

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

Well, to explain it, I would equate Internet security and privacy to home security. Locks will not prevent everyone from getting in, but they will certainly discourage a great percentage. Combine locks with metal doors and security film on windows and that will add to discouraging an even larger percentage of break and enter types. You add hidden video surveillance with motion detection and night vision and you are down to a miniscule percentage of attempts to enter. The point here is the home owner IS IN CONTROL.

The equivalent on the net is that you can "leave all the doors to your privacy OPEN" or start locking them up and since it is your decision YOU ARE IN CONTROL.

In breaking into a house a burglar does not want to spend lots of time trying to get through alarms, metal doors, protected windows, detecting and avoiding video surveillance etc. As the police say: he will move on to an easier victim's house.

On the net, it is far easier to monitor a person who uses their real name, real location, and real email address to put together an extensive profile on, then one who never uses their real name, uses multiple usernames, hides their location, uses several ISPs, encrypts their email etc. and that is not a difficult task.

 

[skieur]

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.QUOTE]

Sure it is. Everyone would have said that the concepts behind Google Earth were completely impossible. It did not take long for them to become reality. Read Google's "privacy" policy carefully and you will find that Google has EVERY intention on putting together a "GOOGLE PEOPLE SEARCH" program and profiles of "Jon Smith"s to sell to advertisers, insurance companies, and a large list of 3rd parties who are interested in the personal information of the average joe. Technology has made it possible.

 

[skieur]

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.

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??

 

[Josh66]

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]

"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]

"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.

But infringing on the rights of another in the name of that racism is a crime as....stated above...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

Manslaughter is accidental, murder is intentional. Significant difference.

 

[rexbobcat]

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