| Author | Message | ||
     D_adams |
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/cia-responds- to-wikileaks-wtf/ CIA responds to WikiLeaks: WTF
Couldn't help but laugh about the name... | ||
| Blake |
Gov employee warned that having "w___leaks in title of thread my get BadWeB blocked, so I edited the title. Hope you don't mind. | ||
| Sifo |
Gov employee warned that having "w___leaks in title of thread my get BadWeB blocked, so I edited the title. Hope you don't mind. I really hope that's an attempt at humor. It's hard to tell on the web sometimes. You did actually edit the title though. WTF!??? | ||
| Blake |
No joke. Verified and confirmed. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
its eschelon search software architecture.... one notch above a FaceBook search or a google search without analyst actually looking at the data, it is worthless. sounds more to me like the S-2 of the unit from the CPL should be under investigation too. That diapshiate never should have had one man access to that info. totally against protocol, not even going to broach the copier access and internet portal; lots of somebody f-d up on that one. Glad it wasnt my old unit. if you really want to ramp up your paranoia.... and theirs.... give a search to 'Resilience' DAMHIK | ||
| Aesquire |
When someone can plug his mem stick into a secure computer and play Lady Gaga.... and no one cares....... I would have braced him for singing Lady Gaga.... If I then saw he was playing it from a mem stick on a secure computer? I'd have been charged under the UCMJ. I forget, what's the section on destroying govt. property with someones skull? | ||
| Fahren |
No joke. Verified and confirmed. Some free country. Thank u, Patriot Act. | ||
| Blake |
It is against the rules to access classified info without need to know. All leaked cables, despite being publicly available have yet to be declassified. It's just the rules. | ||
| Crusty |
Anything not compulsory is forbidden. Big Brother is Always Right. Those who didn't take Orwell seriously (like my entire class in High School) will now get to experience his world. Welcome to the land of the fee and the home of the slave. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Entities have privacy rights (and limitations) just like people do. The government has a right to some privacy, and has limitations on that privacy also. If there were allegations that something was illegal, there are (AFAIK) very effective channels for that already. Assange had one goal in mind, to bring down the United States of America. He timed the releases and the content to try and achieve that end. In terms of the media and the constitutional protections afforded it, I think "with great duty comes great responsibility", and the media has been for the most part blowing it since I was old enough to pay attention in the 70's. It changed from "I will follow the story wherever it goes" to a more dogmatic "I am here to make a change and I have specific ends in mind and I will find and follow (and maybe amplify or fabricate) any lead that takes me towards that end. Journalists these days seem to be idealists with an agenda. That sounds like just as bad an idea as having an accountant that is an idealist with an agenda. They may be doing something important, but it sure ain't accounting. (Or it might not be important, because it is so tainted with idealism and dogma as to become useless). | ||
| Bigblock |
His goal is to bring down the USA? Oh come on, don't buy into that load of crap! If our country (gov't) is so weak that a few leaked low grade "secrets" can bring it down, we wouldn't be in the global leadership position that we are. This is just going to end up as a tool to restrict our already unbelievably limited rights even further. "The truth shall set you free"... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
you will notice that he is glaringly silent about the CBO budget offices reports for 'Health Care Reform' The agency directives for the FCC, IRS, CMS, SSA, NEA entitlements, HUD funding, TARP bailouts, financial securities documentation, FEMA 'emergency civil response; or Resilience. ..... He aint all about transparency. He had an agenda. And the CPL, in time of war, is a traitor, and there is a yard arm for that. 15 years Military Intelligence, I have never seen a f*ck up of this proportion; and there are some dooseys out there. | ||
| Aesquire |
His goal is to bring down the USA? No, all of western liberal civilization. He's a spoiled brat anarchist. Oh come on, don't buy into that load of crap! I don't, he does. He said so. Spoiled brat anarchist. If he had cojones and was islamic, he'd be the typical jihadi murderer. Instead he rats out the good and the bad for his ideology. To be fair, he claims not to be an anarchist. ( he's still a spoiled brat. ) http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovert heworld/2010/12/201012228384924314.html | ||
| Hootowl |
The government can't "block" badweb. They can block badweb from being accessed from networks that they own, and have content filters managing access for. Most major corporations employ such a filter. Nothing sinister going on here. | ||
| Bigdaddy |
Once they decide what sites are good for you and what sites are bad for you they can scrub all of your requests right off the wire. This isn't even a complicated process and using typical QoS rules any of the owners of the big iron can shape traffic to specific hubs of connectivity and clean up the traffic to fit their expectations. He who owns the hardware owns the traffic. In this particular case it is likely better to say 'he who has the ability to put he who owns the hardware out of business/in jail owns the traffic.' The hardware exists today to make this happen and it could happen as quickly as new ACLs could be put on routers. You believe that I'm throwing out a bit of hyperbole? I am not. One manufacturer of big scrubbing gear can input 5 OC-192s in to a single chassis and apply their ruleset to all of that traffic...that is a buttload of freaking traffic if I need to quantify the volume. You are not playing on the Interwebs without ingressing/egressing some OC-192 real estate. We The Sheeple... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
'The site you requested is not appropriate per user access, this transaction has been recorded, monitored and forwarded' It was the tag I put on every computer that had any open portal in the work spaces on deployment, you could try and get to gaming or porn.... and well, it was shut down. The SCIF was another level of paranoia and supervision that will make you pucker. The CPL never should have been able to download, access, or send the information he did. Heads should roll. at minimal he should be in Gitmo for sedition. | ||
| Hootowl |
QoS is widely used in business to ensure high value applications (say, SAP) don't have to compete for bandwidth with web traffic across what are usually slow WAN links between remote sites and the data center. ISPs COULD use QoS to favor their own services vs. their competition but to date, no one has. This law addresses something (poorly and vaguely) that isn't even happening. All this law will do is spawn decades of lawsuits that will determine via jurisprudence what "reasonable" means in the context of network management. Congress looked at this mess and decided it wasn't an issue and didn't act. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats at the FCC (talk about exceeding your charter) thought otherwise and are acting unilaterally. Note that Comcast was found to be throttling some peer to peer traffic but not in favor of their own similar traffic. They did it to MANAGE the traffic that was choking their network so that other services could still function. Will this be legal under the new rules? It's going to take hundreds of thousands of billable hours to find out. The lawyers must be in heaven. | ||
| Aesquire |
The lawyers are in heaven. This is only the smokescreen for the real deal. Like the Healthcare Socialization act, it's the camels nose under the tent. The Obamacare deal is now showing it's stripes, very very quietly. The NYT did a piece on Christmas Day and the administrators of the takeover have essentially cart blanche. They make the rules, and only they know what they will be next week. Like Pelosi said, to see what's in it you have to pass it, and what's in it is total, creeping control of all things. If you can control billing you control it all. Is Badweb "fair"? ( nope, it reflects the owner and the users ) It will get restricted for your own good. They know they can't kill all the pundits out there over night, so it's a gradualism deal. Take a little freedom here, a little there, all for your own good, until all you have is what is allowed. Probably CNN. "All channels, all net. Do you want to know more?" (points for id'ing quote) Final analysis. Would you be happy with this power in the hands of Bush? Sarah Palin? Be honest. | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't understand why the FCC thinks it has the regulatory authority to interfere with the transmission of information over a private network. Yes, I said private. ISPs are not public networks, though they may be publicly traded. The FCC can't restrict what kind of programming you can see on cable TV. Why? It isn't broadcasted over the public airwaves. That's the FCC's stomping ground. This regulation of non broadcast media is well outside their charter. I hope they are sued immediately and a fair minded judge slaps all this down. We have a (semi) functional elected government body that decided this was a bad idea. Who the f*%$ does FCC think they are? | ||
| Aesquire |
...think they are? The arbiters of speech. 1984 was a while ago, but Orwell understood. The Ministry of Truth. or... perhaps, soon... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Directorate_of_S tate_Security Expect more of this. http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13330034 for "reference" on the young lad above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov |
