What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
143 Comments
- JohnCoyote, on 11/06/2008, -10/+125a note to MacBook users.
that little webcam above your screen? yeah, it's always on, whether you're using it or not. - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -1/+52The internet as we know it currently is too far built up to change the infrastructure like this article describes. The internet is a global entity and not something that any one country can control.
As they said, it would involve starting from scratch with a "new" internet that would take years but most likely decades to be adopted by those who CHOOSE to.
So in other words, excuse me for not buying into this sensationalistic opinion peace. - MWeather, on 11/07/2008, -1/+37Next? What do you think the current cameras do?
- rsomers, on 11/07/2008, -2/+33You mean Ted Stevens can tell which of the series of tubes I sent my comment through? That scares me.
- gusto, on 11/06/2008, -3/+32Reminds me of the backlash against street cameras in the UK... and now they are taken for granted.
- eatsushi, on 11/07/2008, -3/+31Rise in internet spying = rise in amount of hackers
Thank you hackers. - MeatMountain, on 11/07/2008, -1/+29You must utilize the power of 7 proxies
- had3l, on 11/07/2008, -2/+28omg, I'm gonna put some tape over it then.
- asforme, on 11/07/2008, -0/+26The US Constitution was never written to "offer" rights, it was written to give limited authority to government. Therefor, everything that the US government isn't constitutionally authorized to do is a right. Of course we're a long way from that now, but the point is that governments don't give rights, they are preexisting and government has no authority to be involved.
- someology, on 11/07/2008, -0/+17What I'm viewing in my own home should be private. Theoretically, if I'm not participating in a ratings polling program, what i watch on my TV is private, what I hear on my radio is private. What i surf on my computer should also be my business.
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -2/+17FIGHT THE POWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- ExRe, on 11/07/2008, -2/+16Paranoid much?
No, the NSA can NOT decrypt everything you send. There are plenty of methods of encryption which would probably take hundreds or thousands of years using all of the combined processing power of every computer on the earth to crack. - knightboat, on 11/07/2008, -5/+19A lot of people say that, but no one has ever proven it.
It's not on all the time. Let's not all turn into paranoid goons over it. I can't believe that ridiculous comment has the top diggs for this story. - vertigo32, on 11/07/2008, -0/+14Please. Unless you are using TOR or anonomous proxies, you never even had superficial anonimity on the internet in the first place. Your ISP logs your use and IP address. Sites log your activity. You use cookies, etc.
Even using things like PGP or TOR, the NSA / CIA / FBI can figure out what you are doing if they cared...at some level you are vulnerable, even if it means social engineering or a keylogger. They normally don't though, although I do agree that the implications are a bit concerning. - UselessTrivia, on 11/07/2008, -0/+13I like how the guy thinks that Porn is somehow a "marginal" or "fringe" activity on the internet, instead of it's entire reason for being.
Nobody will ever give up anonymous porn surfing. As for workarounds...as technology improves so does the technology for beating that technology. - sanderton, on 11/07/2008, -4/+15Yes, but that's hardly a good thing is it?
Next thing is the cameras the record your number plate as you drive around... - DigDugDigger, on 11/07/2008, -1/+11One thing I liked about the original iSight was the mechanical lens cover.
But hey, if any one of you wants to watch me fap... it's gonna hurt you more than it hurts me. - Ommatidia, on 11/07/2008, -0/+10The article has a sensationalist title about the end of internet anonymity, but later says "Anonymous internets will always exist".
Buried for lying/wasting my time with an inaccurate title. - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -2/+11You sound hurt... did those "chicks" hurt you?
- sparsely, on 11/07/2008, -0/+9This article sucks.
In the introduction, he provides links to the Air Force document, yet from his next sentence appears to have completely ignored its contents.
FTA: "So what are these "laws"? I imagine that the one they have the biggest problem with is, "On the internet, no one knows who you are.""
Imagine? Yeah, that's pretty much what he's doing. Imagining.
The relevant portion: (from https://www.fbo.gov/index?print_preview=1&s=opport ... )
Technologies of interest here include any that help enable a future National policy of cyber deterrence, including (but not limited to):
• Threat traceback and attribution (to include determination of intent)
• Threat geolocation
• Adversary understanding and cost models (i.e., risk vs. reward)
• Measurement and control of adversary perception of Air Force network capabilities
• Information valuation
• Denial of adversary's situation awareness and understanding, while avoiding conflicts with friendly information operations
• Means to measure and determine equity in response
So the first two I guess are teh ones he takes issue with, traceback and geolocation, but that's nothing more than a fancy way of saying "accurate IP tracing & locating. In other words, find out who hacked you.
Unless you support people hacking into the USAF and being untraced and untouchable, there's no alarming wording to be found, IMO.
Buried as *****. - effigy, on 11/07/2008, -3/+12We were never Anonymous on the Internet anyway. The Anonymity we "think" we have is not very anonymous. ISP's keep records on your IP address. Web Servers keep records of all your activity on that website. Cookies track us between websites. And Search engines know everything your searching for.
No we are not anonymous, we have never been. - TheMachine1, on 11/07/2008, -0/+8I'm using a relay of pre-paid cellular phones that I have installed at the top of trees with solar panels and free aol cds to make this comment.
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+8I think you're forgetting hackers also give us the tools to STAY anonymous on the internet..
- catbeller, on 11/07/2008, -1/+9Democracy requires anonymity. This is basic. The Supreme Court has upheld this for anonymous pamphleting. It holds for anonymous posts, anonymous emails, anonymous phone calls. People have anonymously used the phone and mail systems for over a hundred and thirty years, and the republic survived. We do not need masters to spy on us. Nor have we asked for this. We do not need this, not to find the commies, Mulsims, or badthinkers among us, which is always the exuse.
Without anonymity, whistleblowers cannot tell us what is wrong. An employee can't drop a quarter and get a reporter on the phone to report criminal activity. You can't report a crime to the cops without the mob's insiders at the telecom giving them your full file. Scientologists will shred people at will. Cults will own us. The government will own us.
We can anonymize. Internet 2, Electric Boogaloo. LED point to point backbones on rooftops. Cables strung where cops can't see. Photonic communications so that sniffers can't sniff radio. It can be done cheaply. As in no corporations. As in, no snitches.
People who understand reality understand why anon communications are necessary. - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -1/+9Eh I'm still not buying it. The internet is probably the biggest interconnected infrastructure on the planet. The switch to a "new internet" (my god, can you imagine the costs of building such a thing for the already existing volume it will need to deal with?) would in my opinion be harder than phasing out all fossil-fuel using vehicles.
- ninjan, on 11/07/2008, -2/+9Glad that I've already downloaded the entire internets to my floppies!
- rjinso, on 11/07/2008, -0/+7Correlation is not causation.
And for that matter, the issue is with criminals, not hackers (i.e. hackers are not necessarily criminals). - pistonhonda, on 11/07/2008, -0/+6I'd like to digg asforme twice.
- knightboat, on 11/07/2008, -1/+7If it's posted on the Internet, it must be true.
- greentimes, on 11/07/2008, -2/+8I can see into the future where this dude will be all I told you so. I think he's totally right, it will take decades but it will probably still happen. Those with control want it back - it's a simple concept.
- robbob, on 11/07/2008, -1/+7another option is the Air Force can get off the Internet
- faceless323, on 11/07/2008, -1/+6http://digg.com/apple/Stolen_MacBook_Victim_Uses_i ...
- skyshock1, on 11/07/2008, -0/+5Tor
- CTRaiderThe1st, on 11/07/2008, -0/+5Yes but did you pay cash for those pre-paid cell phones?
- EricAnderton, on 11/07/2008, -4/+9Well, it was fun while it lasted.
"Internet2", anyone? - emt1451, on 11/07/2008, -2/+7Tor...
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4Well, yes. But it suffers the anonymous proxy problem because of endpoints, so again you'd need some encryption setup beforehand.
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -2/+6protip: they don't care because it's not expedient to do so - as soon as it becomes cheap (in terms of money and time) you can bet they'll care.
- dickbain, on 11/07/2008, -1/+5How many things are wrong with this quote from the opinion piece?
"It's true that the TCP/IP protocol, as currently implemented, makes it very hard to verify the source of any given network packet, but that's purely because the network architects chose to make it that way."
1) TCP/IP protocol. Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol Protocol?
2) Source of a network packet (TCP) is very easy to trace back to the source. How else would the packet be returned. UDP can be spoofed...but that's not going to affect privacy.
3) Who are these architects that chose this. . . uggg - chuckDontSurf, on 11/07/2008, -2/+6"protip: they don't care"
Until they do. - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -2/+6Read the article. What they're describing IS "internet2", so to speak.
- Eslamicolt3, on 11/07/2008, -2/+6Tell that to China.
- losblack, on 11/07/2008, -1/+5The LED connected to the iSight camera lets you know when it's on. This is hard-wired (i.e. a bad guy could not record you without that light on.)
So don't worry! =D - meruru, on 11/07/2008, -1/+5Actually I don;t think most people will care. Your stereotypical "Mom" user who just wants to read e-mail and shop could care less about being anonymous. Especially if cyber-crime increases in frequency. If enough people have their identity stolen, or e-mail/bank accounts hacked, or something similar they will be clamoring to end the anonymity to make themselves feel safer...
...God I'm scaring myself, I sound like I need a tin foil hat - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4GET TO DA CHOPPA
- Barackalypse, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4All of which likely keep logs for 30 days, so unless you're using someone elses wifi, they will trace it back to your hardwired port.
- blaisedaly, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4Welcome to the standard opinion piece.
Decided upon before attempting to review the facts. - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -6/+9No matter what you do, agencies like the NSA/CIA will be able to track you if they so desired (protip: they don't care)
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3It's a big truck.
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -1/+4...and if people would read the service agreements when they signed up for their ISPs, they would know that. Don't like it? Don't subscribe.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is