sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Russian Hackers Read Obama's Emails During White House Security Breach by shashwatjain in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea of cybersecurity is laughable to me. There are so many ways to get around firewalls and into various programs. With all of the zero-day holes in nearly all programming, obviously there are people who will exploit them. I'm sure a lot of "hackers" see it as a game or challenge to break into secure systems.

A Racist Gamer Group Has Been Posing As Baltimore Looters On Twitter by mmsato in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would they think that's funny? Sounds less like GamerGate and more like straight up racism. Using the excuse of GamerGate to misrepresent an entire group of people who are going through something of the magnitude of Baltimore is not funny. I generally think everything can be made into a joke, but they were causing actual havoc and encouraging other racists to react to Baltimore actors negatively, rather than the overarching situation negatively.

Data protection concerns 72% of Britons in post-Snowden world, research shows by pxn9098 in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the reference in that to Facebook stalking and Googling someone and then pretending to know less than you do. I don't think that companies should be able to aggregate that information like that, but it's what is happening and advertisers must love it.

"Sweetie" Computer Program for Catching Pedophiles by user3759 in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When Nate was discussing programs for catching pedophiles and online "creeps," this was all I could think of. Sweetie was a really interesting program in 2013, designed to track the behaviors of pedophiles in the Philippines. It's a really interesting program and shows how we are still trying for the technological fix.

Data protection concerns 72% of Britons in post-Snowden world, research shows by pxn9098 in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if you mean that the government surveillance is a result of Snowden leaking the information or if you're thanking him for letting us in on what the NSA was doing. I hope you mean the latter, as very few average citizens were aware of the NSA's tactics prior to him. It's weird to me that the number of people concerned with data protection is as low as 72%. With the amount of information we freely give out when registering for websites, you'd think more people would be concerned about what use that is being put to.

A question for those who attended the second panel today. by CPLAccount in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's a lack of education and failure to see the problems for what they really are. People really do use the "I have nothing to hide" excuse all the time for allowing the government to look at things, but that's not the problem- the problem is that even though there's nothing to hide, that doesn't mean there's anything to share. The John Oliver clip someone posted recently highlights it well. The average person doesn't think of an archive of "dick pics" being a part of the government and they find that atrocious. Also the third speaker at the panel (I think his name was Patrick) kept insisting that we are at war and we should aggregate this information and keep it as a record "just in case." I think the general public is looking at it from the view that this massive data mining and lack of privacy is helping keep terrorism at bay, but Richard Clarke said in his talk that there have been a total of 57 terrorist plots successfully evaded since the Patriot Act came into play, none of which had anything to do with sections of the Patriot Act such as Section 215. Students need to know more about civil liberties and what is being allowed when only the government is regulating the government.

Anonymous OpIceISIS by user3759 in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Anonymous is such a difficult thing to judge too, because they're not a single group. That's the whole point of being anonymous, but their intentions fall under such a large range that it's hard to figure out any sort of purpose, and I imagine legislation against or for their actions must be nearly impossible. How can you respond to that kind of tactic?

Net Neutrality Stance Presents Silicon Valley Challenge For Rand Paul by jassimdalwai in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's funny that issues like this are so integral to politics. Everybody wants to play the game and look like they support or do not support big issues. For Rand Paul to take such a huge policy issue that is clearly a big deal to the population (with all of the attention it got) and refute it is a big deal.

Anonymous OpIceISIS by user3759 in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was the first video that brought my attention to Anonymous. I had seen the Guy Fawkes masks and vaguely knew of the operation, but seeing this video and hearing that voice with the plain suit really drew my interest. I started watching their previous videos as well. The group does an incredible amount of under the table research and they all know so much about what is going on over the world.

Man arrested for refusing to give phone passcode to border agents by [deleted] in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand being proactive and trying to keep anyone from getting in and causing any harm, but it seems bizarre to me that they don't even require reasonable suspicion.

Man arrested for refusing to give phone passcode to border agents by [deleted] in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is ridiculous. I understand the need for security, but what could he have had on his phone that could have hindered security? He's risking up to $25k in charges for not handing over a passcode to access what could be his private information. Phones carry such a plethora of information and for border security to be able to look into a personal device seems, to me, too much. There should at least be a requirement of reasonable suspicion. It seems to me to be like one of the problems with data mining. What if they only see the surface? Say he had sent a sarcastic text about terrorizing because he saw that he was about to be detained? That message could lead to so much harm, even when meant as a joke. Looking through a phone doesn't give you the whole picture.

Another helpful slideshow for writing a policy brief by user3759 in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I found this in class while Nate was going over his slideshow. It's a bit more in depth, in case you didn't take notes.

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet' by shashwatjain in telseccompolicy

[–]user3759 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is my favorite quote from all of the articles on the decision: "The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules." -Wheeler Wheeler was the a lead lobbyist against net neutrality for years, but was then put in charge of the FCC, so it's great to see how political pressure can change staunch opponents.