What is Digg?152 Comments
- duncandog, on 10/11/2007, -6/+194I like the last quote that internet users have no expectation of privacy. I already had no expectation of privacy for my phone calls, letters and email. I have none for files on my computer. Heck why should I have any expectation of privacy at all. The rate at which Americans are giving up the right to be American is tragic and is being done right in front of our eyes.
- shifty2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+80192.168.100.151
00-13-72-12-26-BE
too many to list
firefox 2.0.0.5, outlook 2007, trillian
devilsown
shifty
http://www.superclowngangbangsex.com
thats all they'll get from me!! - rulesaremyenemy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+54FTA: "Under a ruling this month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, such surveillance -- which does not capture the content of the communications -- can be conducted without a wiretap warrant, because internet users have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the data when using the internet."
Warrantless Spying, wonderful. - AdamFromMyspace, on 10/11/2007, -2/+41If someone did this to the FBI they'd rot in jail..
- ers35, on 10/11/2007, -1/+39How are they going to get this on my Linux box? Do they even have a version compiled for Linux?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+38man i clicked that link expecting some goddamn superclowngangbangsex!!!!!!!!!
- bigtomrodney, on 10/11/2007, -0/+35That's your LAN IP address. You're all talk! ;)
- ilselu1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34the benefits of using a Linux system abound...
- lukasmack, on 10/11/2007, -16/+47***** the FBI RIAA MPAA AT&T M$ in fact ***** all abrievatted corporations especally the ones with capitals.
- cranium, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Just another case where some dumbass judge who doesn't understand technology makes a dumbass ruling.
"No reasonable expectation of privacy" means that someone could sniff the network and intercept your data. Everyone knows that, that's why we have SSL for example.
But what we do have is a reasonable expectation that others are allowed to invade your computer with surruptitious software. This is the cyber-equivalent of breaking and entering, and they should be required to have a warrant.
That said, I read digg, my gmail, check woot once in a while, and sometimes read fark. Have fun with that, you gestapo-ass m-fers. - BZKyle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Its not fascism when we do it!
- fernB, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Under the freedom of information act UH can I get a copy of that code?
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19No they have a camera in your room!
- mglmouser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Well, you might not have privacy anymore but you got your freedom!
Hrm. Oh. Wait... - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16"Isn't giving out your MAC address risky?"
No, actually it's not. Your MAC address is used only on the local segment, which means it only has significance until it hits the next piece of equipment (a router). At each hop, the MAC address in the packets is replaced with the MAC address of the equipment that forwards it. Your MAC address never reaches anyone else on the Internet. You can easily verify this yourself with a sniffer, like tcpdump or wireshark.
In addition, the MAC address, while it needs to be unique on your LAN segment (the equipment controlled by a single router), you can easily change it. All operating systems provide the ability to replace the hardware MAC (burned into a ROM on your network interface) with a MAC specified by software. - totallyAMAZING, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18There's only time before people start accusing other people of being terrorists. The next McCarthy is on the way, I'm sure.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Fortunately, other people have collectively tested the code.
That's why it's a 'Community', and why Linux wasn't written by one individual. - shifty2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14im not dumb enough to give out my real MAC address nor in this case my internal IP address...
HINT: the internal IP address is of my boss... - theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Run nmapFE on yourself often, always prefer to install your software from a genuine package mirror, and never, ever turn off md5 checksum verification. Helps me sleep at night.
- fpcyber, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11You left your caps lock on.
- fwedwic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10yet another good reason not to use myspace haha
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Whats so different than how it works now? That they admit they do it?
- RaggTopp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Apparently YOU didn't read the article. In this one specific case they applied for a warrant (nowhere in the article does it say they actually were granted it, we just assume), yet at the END of the article(the quote YOU replied to), it states SPECIFICALLY that this type of spying does NOT require a warrant ANY MORE.
That means THEY DO NOT NEED A WARRANT TO SEND YOU SPYWARE. This also means that all forms on non invasive spyware are now perfectly legal. - GeekyGerge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Isn't giving out your MAC address risky?
- Solkre, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I like how they can speed doing anything, police related or not.
- shifty2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9i plan in registering it and then selling it for profit when the right super clown gives me a good offer.
gangbang optional! - DooM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8That's awesome - because I have to read a version of your comment every frickin' day on Digg. So now we're all even.
- RaggTopp, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Shhhh.......your "insult" was lame and OH so original.
- tehnico, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8No reasonable expectation of privacy?? Are they on crack?!
- locolobomo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Well, guess its time to make sure I start using the anonymous computer for everything again. I'm not a big fan of being followed/watched, even when I'm not up to no good!
- iXneonXi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Or, they'll just see that you're using Linux and flag you as a suspected terrorist. ***** ignorance.
- HPCELarry, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11they got a warrant for this, read the article.
- chucksmooth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8feel better now?
- KataLieb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yeah...And run the latest chkrootkit and rkhunter at regular intervals and check your logs also...Better yet, have conky draw tails of your important logs on your desktop where theyre easy to see :)
And of course dont install anything not from a verified source...And have a script blocker in the browser to prevent them from utilizing some javascript etc vulnerability.
Doing this I dont think theyre gonna get anything on my box... - Solkre, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Stripped down as in it doesn't give you pop up ads?
STOP LOOKING AT CP ***** ~FBI - eggo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6anyone who wouldn't delete that immediately is a dumbass
- Cimlite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6... well, obviously it won't be called "FBI_monitoring_tool.exe". Let's see what happens when you get "Congratulations_your_winner_cruise.exe". :P
- etandrib, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Or any OS that isn't Windows. This was 15 year old. They sent him software and he stupidly installed it on his system. I've never had spyware and definitely don't plan on installing "FBI monitoring tool" if it shows up in my inbox.
- uptown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5FBI Agent: "If You Want To Frustrate Law Enforcement, Use A Mac"
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/02/02.5.shtml - SilentJay74, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Give the Spybot Search and Destroy developers a little time. They will write a definition file to kill it. If the article a few weeks ago titled"Spybot Bows to No One" true.
- laelfrog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Not so fast. I'd save it and copy it all over the place. Decompile it and see what we are dealing with.
- brainScan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Some l33t should find out the websites that the judge visited over the past 60 days, email them to him, and tell him he's go no right to privacy. See how he feels about it then!!!
- julianrod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5In Linux you don't get original software drivers and you don't get original FBI spyware... I bet the FBI doesn't even have tech support for their spyware.
- Hermmunster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Of course we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. All of us do. Because it goes down one electrical wire vs another set of electrical wires doesn't mean we give up our privacy. What's the precendent for denying us our privacy as an internet user?
When the time comes this will be overturned. We all must expect privacy on the internet. In fact, our emails are protected, our voice calls are protected, and many others. There's no reason to say that we have no privacy expected because our computer is attached to the internet. In fact, if this ruling were to stand we'd all be at stake of having the government monitor our VOIP activity.
The judge making that ruling has to have been brain dead or utterly incapable of making that decision with any common sense attached.
By saying that the spyware could be installed on the computer without a court order he's giving other criminals a get out of jail free card. They installed something on this persons computer without their knowledge or agreement without getting a warrant. That's like putting a camera in a home to monitor not what is going on but who comes and who goes. This is just pathetic. Time for that Judge to retire. - tenenbaum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5> So what prevents my firewall/antivirus/antispyware/antiadware software from detecting and removing this thing?
Backdoors? I think it is clear that FBI would try to make the major antivirus/antispyware companies to left backdoors to their software for FBI spyware. Not everybody is so powerfull as Google to say no to the goverment. Also again, it is the difference to target criminals or simply everybody who uses computer and internet. - theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Werd. Reverse security engineers bow to no man.
- genexyzration, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This explains why my neighbors wireless proxy is acting slow today.
- spoonyfork, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This comment more insightful than I think people realize. By using market forces one can lower the value of this type of information. If you flood the market so to speak with your personal data and metadata then you will lower the value of that information if everyone has it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is