Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159496 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 21:11 +0100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 02:16 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 23:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 04:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:09 -0800
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 20:45 -0700
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:00 +1100
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-18 02:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 22:47 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:10 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 21:29 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:56 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 23:15 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:35 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:44 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 08:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 20:13 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:26 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 18:21 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 23:32 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:34 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 19:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:25 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:25 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 17:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:01 +1100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 16:26 -0800
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-21 13:52 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 15:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-20 16:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 15:59 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:36 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 17:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 18:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 19:48 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 18:17 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:33 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:48 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:56 -0800
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 23:18 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 15:33 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 01:51 -0700
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:40 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 23:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:56 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:50 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 17:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:30 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 10:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 11:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:53 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:15 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 17:55 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:19 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 18:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 14:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 09:28 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:19 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:24 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 12:27 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 00:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:41 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 07:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 08:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:50 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:33 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 21:04 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:03 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 19:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 20:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 21:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:43 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-21 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:08 -0800
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 18:10 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 16:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:13 -0600
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 14:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-17 12:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 07:38 -0700
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:11 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-17 12:05 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:39 -0800
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-16 16:44 -0400
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-16 15:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:20 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 18:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:46 +0100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0800
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 14:43 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 15:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:30 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 19:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 00:51 +0100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 10:16 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:19 -0700
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:08 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-23 16:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:58 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:40 +0000
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:06 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:44 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 17:08 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:41 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 09:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-21 10:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:48 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:40 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 01:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 00:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 09:37 +0100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:17 -0500
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:42 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:52 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 10:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 17:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 20:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 21:31 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 14:41 -0600
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 17:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:34 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 18:25 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:15 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:28 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 21:46 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:31 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-18 13:56 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-19 17:09 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:55 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 07:15 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:30 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-23 01:49 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:09 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:29 -0500
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:11 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 11:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 14:04 +0100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 15:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 21:31 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 17:04 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-17 04:08 -0400
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:57 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 16:43 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600
Page 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 13:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dislbuFqrp1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160000 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121493960.477708458.941322.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > hgww <hgww@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> "JimP" <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:rr4hcbpncbqa22ppmm8f531hef1i0gad39@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:34:38 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:59:01 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote: >>>> >>>>> The two dead terrorists shot up a Christmas party. They didn't, as far >>>>> as we know, merely 'look suspicious'. >>>> >>>> What apparently remains unknown at this point, and possibly even >>>> doubtful, >>>> is whether they were actually hostile foreign "terrorists", that is, >>> >>> At least one of them was born in the U.S. But so have other terrorists >>> been born here. It appears they didn't see the freedoms here. >>> >>>> like the ones who attacked the WTC and Pentagon. Or, whether this was >>>> a >>>> case of workplace violence, or perhaps some nutjobs murdering others, >>>> like >>>> almost all of the mass shootings in the U.S. There were so many things >>>> irrational/illogical about this particular tragedy that it almost >>>> screams >>>> mental illness. >>> >>> The man was aparently contented until he went back home and visited >>> relatives, then met the woman he was shot up the party with. >> >> They're mostly still into arranged marriages with the women >> from back where they came from. Its been fascinating to watch >> the kurds I know still doing that today, mostly marrying the kids >> off as soon as they completely highschool. >> >> There has been just one exception in the family I know well, >> and even he was monstered into doing it when he was 30 or >> so. That one failed, I haven't been able to get a straight story >> out of them yet about what happened, whether her family >> decided that he was much too old or he changed his mine >> at the last minute, but that is because I haven't had a chance >> to ask the one who always tells me the full story who is in >> fact the latest to have got married off. >> >> I keep ribbing the youngest who is only 13 every time they >> head back to Turkey in a massive group so large that they >> can't even do a single joint booking that if he doesn't watch >> out they will marry him off this time too. Get one hell of a >> scowl every time I rib him like that. I will be fascinating to >> see how that pans out with him when he leaves school at >> 18 etc. > This is not new, Sure, I was essentially remarking on how it is still very common with some groups after they have migrated in very large numbers to modern first word countries. > or unique to middle-easternerners. Sure, even more common in India and Pakistan etc. > Many times men from scandanavia, ireland, or italy, if > they didn't already have a girl they wanted to marry, > would write back to their relatives and ask them to > find a nice girl from their village for them to marry. Sure, but it doesn’t happen with them today. It wasn’t even that common with Italian immigrants here and I happen to live in a town which has more Italian immigrants than any other sort and they outnumber the locals too, largely because it is a new town that only got started after WW1 with the development of the irrigation industry here. > It took another generation or so for > intermarriage to become common. And even now isnt all that common with some groups like the jews for example. Tho they have cared a lot less about the country of origin than the religion. > Irish and Italian is a standing joke. Yeah, my sister actually married someone who had Irish ancestors. That caused quite a stir amongst what used to be called the 'maiden aunts' because he was a roman catholic and she chose to convert. We have a very long history of some pretty rabid anti catholic prejudice here, essentially because of the Feinian history in Britain etc. Just a stir tho because she was always very popular with the maiden aunts, essentially because she was the only one they had much to with in that generation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 17:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na85co$1cfc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159809 |
On 19/02/2016 11:26 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: > >> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as >> anyone's privacy is in trouble. I'm not in the slightest bit >> concerned with the privacy of terrorists. The terrrorists chose to >> be that scummy way. Bleep them and their alleged privacy. > > > The problem with this statement is that anyone can be branded a > terrorist by the government, generally with little to no recourse. > > It's the same problem with Gitmo. There is no recourse if some > military flunky declares someone a terrorist. No writ of habeus > corpus, no trial, nothing. You're taking the governments word a > priori. > > Orwell used "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" > in 1984 to justify intrusive surveillance. It has also been > attributed to Goebbels. > Of course I do have something to hide. Why else would I want to encrypt some of my information. We once had a customer that had a pirated copy of our software. Their excuse was that we had not protected our product hard enough. Our response was that most of our customers are not crooks and we did not want protection against the likes of him to interfere with their work. We found there were many non-invasive ways to identify scumbags, a policy that we still have. The real question in this thread is if the FBI prevails can they do so without impacting the security of millions of people who also own iPhones. I don't have any sympathy for criminals and murders but my Canadian sense of personal freedom should not in any way be impacted by someone else's bad behavior and the pursuit of potential evidence. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dipl5tF3me6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159854 |
"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:na85co$1cfc$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 19/02/2016 11:26 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as >>> anyone's privacy is in trouble. I'm not in the slightest bit >>> concerned with the privacy of terrorists. The terrrorists chose to >>> be that scummy way. Bleep them and their alleged privacy. >> >> >> The problem with this statement is that anyone can be branded a >> terrorist by the government, generally with little to no recourse. >> >> It's the same problem with Gitmo. There is no recourse if some >> military flunky declares someone a terrorist. No writ of habeus >> corpus, no trial, nothing. You're taking the governments word a >> priori. >> >> Orwell used "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" >> in 1984 to justify intrusive surveillance. It has also been >> attributed to Goebbels. >> > Of course I do have something to hide. Why else would I want to encrypt > some of my information. > > We once had a customer that had a pirated copy of our software. Their > excuse was that we had not protected our product hard enough. Our > response was that most of our customers are not crooks and we did not > want protection against the likes of him to interfere with their work. > We found there were many non-invasive ways to identify scumbags, a > policy that we still have. > > The real question in this thread is if the FBI prevails can they do so > without impacting the security of millions of people who also own > iPhones. I don't have any sympathy for criminals and murders but my > Canadian sense of personal freedom should not in any way be impacted by > someone else's bad behavior and the pursuit of potential evidence. It always will be. There's a reason cars have number plates and you have to provide a password to do your net banking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 16:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0t0icbpemc36kt6bfget5h47e9nq9mv2g2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159854 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:36:01 -0500, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Of course I do have something to hide. Why else would I want to encrypt
>some of my information.
>
>We once had a customer that had a pirated copy of our software. Their
>excuse was that we had not protected our product hard enough. Our
>response was that most of our customers are not crooks and we did not
>want protection against the likes of him to interfere with their work.
>We found there were many non-invasive ways to identify scumbags, a
>policy that we still have.
What ways? (I am not challenging your point. I would like more
data.)
>The real question in this thread is if the FBI prevails can they do so
>without impacting the security of millions of people who also own
>iPhones. I don't have any sympathy for criminals and murders but my
>Canadian sense of personal freedom should not in any way be impacted by
>someone else's bad behavior and the pursuit of potential evidence.
Can? Possibly. Will do so? I do not think that they do not
have the will to.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 13:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3bckcbhp85q80visjk53ck118fctlvg4c1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159995 |
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:26:28 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:36:01 -0500, Walter Banks
><walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Of course I do have something to hide. Why else would I want to encrypt
>>some of my information.
>>
>>We once had a customer that had a pirated copy of our software. Their
>>excuse was that we had not protected our product hard enough. Our
>>response was that most of our customers are not crooks and we did not
>>want protection against the likes of him to interfere with their work.
>>We found there were many non-invasive ways to identify scumbags, a
>>policy that we still have.
>
> What ways? (I am not challenging your point. I would like more
>data.)
>
>>The real question in this thread is if the FBI prevails can they do so
>>without impacting the security of millions of people who also own
>>iPhones. I don't have any sympathy for criminals and murders but my
>>Canadian sense of personal freedom should not in any way be impacted by
>>someone else's bad behavior and the pursuit of potential evidence.
>
> Can? Possibly. Will do so? I do not think that they do not
>have the will to.
Argh! That last sentence should have been "I do not think that
they have the will to."
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 18:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nadiit$1ra4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #160070 |
On 21/02/2016 4:52 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:26:28 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:36:01 -0500, Walter Banks >> <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> Of course I do have something to hide. Why else would I want to >>> encrypt some of my information. >>> >>> We once had a customer that had a pirated copy of our software. >>> Their excuse was that we had not protected our product hard >>> enough. Our response was that most of our customers are not >>> crooks and we did not want protection against the likes of him to >>> interfere with their work. We found there were many non-invasive >>> ways to identify scumbags, a policy that we still have. >> >> What ways? (I am not challenging your point. I would like more >> data.) There were a few things that we did. The first was make an assumption that our customers are honest and want to get on with their primary task and that is developing application code. This is an important starting point and changes the whole situation in subtle ways, for one we respect our customers and in most cases they return the favor. We take a genuine interest in what they are doing and make related expertise available that significantly positively impacts development schedules. Pirated copies don't have that access to support and a surprising number of them look for it either in direct support or product revisions and updates. There is always some bad folks, but the real impact on our approach is to not penalize our customers with code that phone's home, becomes impossible to install with restrictions on use or 5 people in company can use it but not 6 type of licenses. If you want a site license tell us. Installations that fail and lock up computers or are impossible to archive with the application and run on a new computer a decade later. (Code we released before 1990 installed and ran on a PC with a different loader) Do we catch them all, I am sure not and frankly I don't care. We are not wasting time looking for for them either. The really bad pirates are surprisingly easy to identify and track down. Specifically I won't say how but lets say we have some simple automated approaches. Contact me offline if you want more details. >> >>> The real question in this thread is if the FBI prevails can they >>> do so without impacting the security of millions of people who >>> also own iPhones. I don't have any sympathy for criminals and >>> murders but my Canadian sense of personal freedom should not in >>> any way be impacted by someone else's bad behavior and the >>> pursuit of potential evidence. >> >> Can? Possibly. Will do so? That last sentence should have been >> "I do not think that they have the will to." Something encouraging about the current apple problem is responsible access may actually happen. The scary thing about the apple case is the number of vulnerabilities that were/are in the product. It opens other doors as well especially the cloud for back-up and storage. If nothing else a whole lot more people are having rational deep thoughts. Many years ago I had a friend that was well into his thirties and essentially electronically unknown and wanted to keep it that way as long as possible. Eventually he had to get a driver's license, and a credit card and banking more significantly than a simple savings account. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 19:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <06e9630a-591c-4386-8f06-481b2220302e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159809 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > The problem with this statement is that anyone can be branded a > terrorist by the government, generally with little to no recourse. A bunch of pizza guys were accused by a dubious government informant of a terrorist plot. They were convicted. I am not an expert on the specifics, but it did seem to be an unusual case: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20160107_Trio_in_Fort_Dix_plot_seek_to_overturn_convictions.html Anyone have any thoughts? > Orwell used "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to > fear" in 1984 to justify intrusive surveillance. It has also been > attributed to Goebbels. I've heard various law enforcement, corporate security, and management types make this claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diq6taF7j7kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159892 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:06e9630a-591c-4386-8f06-481b2220302e@googlegroups.com... > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> The problem with this statement is that anyone can be branded a >> terrorist by the government, generally with little to no recourse. > > A bunch of pizza guys were accused by a dubious government informant > of a terrorist plot. They were convicted. I am not an expert on > the specifics, but it did seem to be an unusual case: > > http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20160107_Trio_in_Fort_Dix_plot_seek_to_overturn_convictions.html > > Anyone have any thoughts? Unless we can see what the defence attorneys said is extremely damaging testimony presented during the trial, its one hell of a stretch to claim that there was no evidence that they actually were terrorists. And given that the current appeal is based on the claim that they were not allowed to testify at trial when they wanted to do that because their attorneys ignored their request to do that, rather than dispute that other evidence... >> Orwell used "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to >> fear" in 1984 to justify intrusive surveillance. It has also been >> attributed to Goebbels. > > I've heard various law enforcement, corporate security, > and management types make this claim. And it is a valid point to make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <TOOdnckDd_-hDVXLnZ2dnUU78ImdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159892 |
On 20/02/2016 03:18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
{snip}
>
>> Orwell used "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to
>> fear" in 1984 to justify intrusive surveillance. It has also been
>> attributed to Goebbels.
>
> I've heard various law enforcement, corporate security, and management
> types make this claim.
>
That saying ignores need to know. There are things about you that your
boss has no need to know. Even if he wants to know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 15:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na8320$ajc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159803 |
On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: > I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be > dead. Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. > And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. > And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, > disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's > privacy is in trouble. What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version with the backdoor? You can't un-ring a bell. > I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of > terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep > them and their alleged privacy. The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" actually means. Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed (or planned to commit) any crime at all. With absolute power to oppress anyone they don't like, how long do you think it'd take for them to apply the same against other groups? We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for others, there will be no one left to speak out when they come for you. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 09:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dipl23F3l8dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159853 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:na8320$ajc$1@dont-email.me... > On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >> dead. > > Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to > violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. > >> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. > > The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, Bullshit they do with their own people. > and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. Not with their own people. The US authorities have never even got close to killing the number of its own people that just one group of terrorists killed in 9/11. >> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >> privacy is in trouble. > > What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version > with the backdoor? That one won't work on any other phone. > You can't un-ring a bell. A rolling stone gathers no moss. >> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. >> Bleep them and their alleged privacy. > > The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, > without any independent review No, we get the courts to decide that. > --or even agreement on what "terrorist" actually means. > > Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison > and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring > them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, > much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed > (or planned to commit) any crime at all. Whatever they believe is irrelevant, that can't happen. > With absolute power to oppress anyone they don't like, how long do you > think it'd take for them to apply the same against other groups? > > We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for others, > there will be no one left to speak out when they come for you. No one is coming for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na8clt$el6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159858 |
On 2/19/2016 4:59 PM, hgww wrote: > > > "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message > news:na8320$ajc$1@dont-email.me... >> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>> dead. >> >> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >> >>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >> >> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, > > Bullshit they do with their own people. > >> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. > > Not with their own people. The US authorities have never > even got close to killing the number of its own people > that just one group of terrorists killed in 9/11. I guess it's generous of you to offer that Aussies (and all other non-US citizens) are fair game. > >>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>> privacy is in trouble. >> >> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >> with the backdoor? > > That one won't work on any other phone. > >> You can't un-ring a bell. > > A rolling stone gathers no moss. > >>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. >>> Bleep them and their alleged privacy. >> >> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >> without any independent review > > No, we get the courts to decide that. Maybe you do, but we don't. Cuz the reason why they're considered a terrorist is secret. And courts are very reluctant to get involved. > >> --or even agreement on what "terrorist" actually means. >> >> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. > > Whatever they believe is irrelevant, that can't happen. It's been a while, but it happened to US nationals of Japanese ancestry during WWII. So it can happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 14:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diq5afF78nrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159870 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:na8clt$el6$1@dont-email.me... > On 2/19/2016 4:59 PM, hgww wrote: >> >> >> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message >> news:na8320$ajc$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>>> dead. >>> >>> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >>> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >>> >>>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >>> >>> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >> >> Bullshit they do with their own people. >> >>> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >> >> Not with their own people. The US authorities have never >> even got close to killing the number of its own people >> that just one group of terrorists killed in 9/11. > I guess it's generous of you to offer that Aussies (and all other non-US > citizens) are fair game. They haven't even killed more of those than were killed in 9/11. >>>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>>> privacy is in trouble. >>> >>> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >>> with the backdoor? >> >> That one won't work on any other phone. >> >>> You can't un-ring a bell. >> >> A rolling stone gathers no moss. >> >>>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. >>>> Bleep them and their alleged privacy. >>> >>> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >>> without any independent review >> >> No, we get the courts to decide that. > > Maybe you do, but we don't. Yes you do. That's the reason that magistrate has just ordered Apple to do what its just been ordered to do. > Cuz the reason why they're considered a terrorist is secret. It clearly isnt with the current court case. > And courts are very reluctant to get involved. The courts clearly weren't with the Apple case. >>> --or even agreement on what "terrorist" actually means. >>> >>> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >>> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >>> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >>> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >>> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. >> >> Whatever they believe is irrelevant, that can't happen. > > It's been a while, but it happened to US nationals of Japanese ancestry > during WWII. Those were not declared terrorists. They just had their movements constrained while the war was in progress. > So it can happen. No it can not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 17:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ce7fcb5srhq20p7h4b10b9k14r74ejigg2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159853 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >> dead. > >Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. > >> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. > >The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. > >> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >> privacy is in trouble. > >What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >with the backdoor? > >You can't un-ring a bell. Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. >> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >> them and their alleged privacy. > >The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >actually means. > >Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >(or planned to commit) any crime at all. Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to remove the US Constitution ? >With absolute power to oppress anyone they don't like, how long do you >think it'd take for them to apply the same against other groups? > >We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for others, >there will be no one left to speak out when they come for you. I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday party. Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they could have been seen as terrorirsts. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na8d9v$geb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159860 |
On 19-Feb-16 17:01, JimP wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can >> imprison and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) >> by declaring them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to >> show probable cause, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, >> that any of them committed (or planned to commit) any crime at >> all. > > Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of > immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They > probably don't see the conficy of interest. They believe they can deport US nationals too (to where?) without due process, so the irony is not specific to that subset. There _is_ a potential conflict of allegiance for those who have _or had_ foreign nationality, which was the genesis of the "natural-born citizen" requirement. It has long been accepted that renouncing one's old nationality is not always sufficient guarantee of one's allegiance to the new nationality. For instance, Secret Service agents guarding POTUS (and his family) must be natural-born citizens, and notably, that is interpreted to disqualify present _or past_ dual citizens; it would seem silly to apply a lower standard to POTUS himself. > Or maybe they just want to remove the US Constitution ? A cursory review of their blathering indicates that none of them have _read_ the Constitution; that aligns with their stated beliefs that (their interpretation of) the Bible is supreme anyway--but further review of said blathering indicates none have read that either; it's hard to figure out what any of them _do_ think the law is, other than whatever crazy idea pops into their head as they're speaking. >> We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for >> others, there will be no one left to speak out when they come for >> you. > > I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday > party. If you have probable cause, get a warrant. While warrants are sometimes abused, that is rare; the real issue is that many politicians believe that they shouldn't _need_ to get a warrant, i.e. that everyone should simply trust their accusations. > Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they > could have been seen as terrorirsts. Wasn't that before SCOTUS decided that non-citizens were protected by the Bill of Rights? Then again, SCOTUS didn't do anything about denying due process to millions of US citizens imprisoned during WWII based solely on their ethnicity, so there's precedent either way. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 19:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <56hfcbl8ofk2jv8cn2eilid1psa2ad0hjv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159872 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:54:08 -0600, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 19-Feb-16 17:01, JimP wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can >>> imprison and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) >>> by declaring them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to >>> show probable cause, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, >>> that any of them committed (or planned to commit) any crime at >>> all. >> >> Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of >> immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They >> probably don't see the conficy of interest. > >They believe they can deport US nationals too (to where?) without due >process, so the irony is not specific to that subset. > >There _is_ a potential conflict of allegiance for those who have _or >had_ foreign nationality, which was the genesis of the "natural-born >citizen" requirement. It has long been accepted that renouncing one's >old nationality is not always sufficient guarantee of one's allegiance >to the new nationality. For instance, Secret Service agents guarding >POTUS (and his family) must be natural-born citizens, and notably, that >is interpreted to disqualify present _or past_ dual citizens; it would >seem silly to apply a lower standard to POTUS himself. Sen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone... and he was seen as a viable Presidential candidate. So someone must have seen him as a natural born citizen. >> Or maybe they just want to remove the US Constitution ? > >A cursory review of their blathering indicates that none of them have >_read_ the Constitution; that aligns with their stated beliefs that >(their interpretation of) the Bible is supreme anyway--but further >review of said blathering indicates none have read that either; it's >hard to figure out what any of them _do_ think the law is, other than >whatever crazy idea pops into their head as they're speaking. Yeah. I've seen this since I was a kid back in the 1950s. People quote stuff, but what they 'quote' isn't in there. >>> We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for >>> others, there will be no one left to speak out when they come for >>> you. >> >> I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday >> party. > >If you have probable cause, get a warrant. > >While warrants are sometimes abused, that is rare; the real issue is >that many politicians believe that they shouldn't _need_ to get a >warrant, i.e. that everyone should simply trust their accusations. Didn't they get a warrant ? >> Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they >> could have been seen as terrorirsts. > >Wasn't that before SCOTUS decided that non-citizens were protected by >the Bill of Rights? > >Then again, SCOTUS didn't do anything about denying due process to >millions of US citizens imprisoned during WWII based solely on their >ethnicity, so there's precedent either way. Native Americans were seen as savages, not people who should have any rights. Didn't get the vote until the 20th century. I think it was after women got the vote. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 16:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naaom9$c6f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159877 |
On 19-Feb-16 19:48, JimP wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> There _is_ a potential conflict of allegiance for those who have >> _or had_ foreign nationality, which was the genesis of the >> "natural-born citizen" requirement. It has long been accepted that >> renouncing one's old nationality is not always sufficient guarantee >> of one's allegiance to the new nationality. For instance, Secret >> Service agents guarding POTUS (and his family) must be natural-born >> citizens, and notably, that is interpreted to disqualify present >> _or past_ dual citizens; it would seem silly to apply a lower >> standard to POTUS himself. > > Sen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone... The Panama Canal Zone was a sovereign lease, i.e. US soil rather than Panamanian soil, which means he wasn't a naturalized or even a dual citizen. No problems there. > and he was seen as a viable Presidential candidate. So someone must > have seen him as a natural born citizen. Congress unanimously passed a resolution declaring Sen. McCain was a natural-born citizen due to the above--and notably, that included all the senators of _both_ parties running against him. Sen. Cruz's _own party_ refuses to vote on such a resolution for him; he's possibly the only person on the planet they hate more than Obama. >>>> We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for >>>> others, there will be no one left to speak out when they come >>>> for you. >>> >>> I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a >>> holiday party. >> >> If you have probable cause, get a warrant. >> >> While warrants are sometimes abused, that is rare; the real issue >> is that many politicians believe that they shouldn't _need_ to get >> a warrant, i.e. that everyone should simply trust their >> accusations. > > Didn't they get a warrant ? Formally, a writ of warrant is a judge's order to do something that would otherwise be a crime, most commonly seize a person (an "arrest warrant") or property (a "search warrant") that already exists. In this case, what they want _does not exist_, so a writ of warrant wouldn't work; they are ordering Apple to produce _new_ software. More generally, the PATRIOT Act allows federal agents (not judges!) to issue classified "National Security Letters" which supposedly have the power of a warrant but cannot be challenged in court; even telling a court that you received one is a crime. So, the govt can declare someone a "terrorist" and then completely ignore due process. >>> Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they >>> could have been seen as terrorirsts. >> >> Wasn't that before SCOTUS decided that non-citizens were protected >> by the Bill of Rights? > > Native Americans were seen as savages, not people who should have > any rights. Didn't get the vote until the 20th century. I think it > was after women got the vote. Dred Scott v Sandford said that only white male landowners could be US citizens; that was mostly overturned by the 14th Amd, which declared everyone born in the US _and subject to the jurisdiction thereof_ to be a US citizen. That was designed to exempt "Indian Tribes", which the US treated as separate nations at the time. It wasn't until the 20th century that Congress unilaterally abrogated its treaties with the "Indian Tribes", which put all "Indians" under US jurisdiction--and made them US citizens as a side effect. Today, the exemption only applies to children of diplomats, who are not subject to US jurisdiction per the Vienna Convention. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 18:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1g0icbpp3uoimd5sb6ju503q88elcsrt92@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159987 |
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:20:43 -0600, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 19-Feb-16 19:48, JimP wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> There _is_ a potential conflict of allegiance for those who have >>> _or had_ foreign nationality, which was the genesis of the >>> "natural-born citizen" requirement. It has long been accepted that >>> renouncing one's old nationality is not always sufficient guarantee >>> of one's allegiance to the new nationality. For instance, Secret >>> Service agents guarding POTUS (and his family) must be natural-born >>> citizens, and notably, that is interpreted to disqualify present >>> _or past_ dual citizens; it would seem silly to apply a lower >>> standard to POTUS himself. >> >> Sen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone... > >The Panama Canal Zone was a sovereign lease, i.e. US soil rather than >Panamanian soil, which means he wasn't a naturalized or even a dual >citizen. No problems there. > >> and he was seen as a viable Presidential candidate. So someone must >> have seen him as a natural born citizen. > >Congress unanimously passed a resolution declaring Sen. McCain was a >natural-born citizen due to the above--and notably, that included all >the senators of _both_ parties running against him. > >Sen. Cruz's _own party_ refuses to vote on such a resolution for him; >he's possibly the only person on the planet they hate more than Obama. > >>>>> We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for >>>>> others, there will be no one left to speak out when they come >>>>> for you. >>>> >>>> I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a >>>> holiday party. >>> >>> If you have probable cause, get a warrant. >>> >>> While warrants are sometimes abused, that is rare; the real issue >>> is that many politicians believe that they shouldn't _need_ to get >>> a warrant, i.e. that everyone should simply trust their >>> accusations. >> >> Didn't they get a warrant ? > >Formally, a writ of warrant is a judge's order to do something that >would otherwise be a crime, most commonly seize a person (an "arrest >warrant") or property (a "search warrant") that already exists. > >In this case, what they want _does not exist_, so a writ of warrant >wouldn't work; they are ordering Apple to produce _new_ software. > >More generally, the PATRIOT Act allows federal agents (not judges!) to >issue classified "National Security Letters" which supposedly have the >power of a warrant but cannot be challenged in court; even telling a >court that you received one is a crime. So, the govt can declare >someone a "terrorist" and then completely ignore due process. > >>>> Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they >>>> could have been seen as terrorirsts. >>> >>> Wasn't that before SCOTUS decided that non-citizens were protected >>> by the Bill of Rights? >> >> Native Americans were seen as savages, not people who should have >> any rights. Didn't get the vote until the 20th century. I think it >> was after women got the vote. > >Dred Scott v Sandford said that only white male landowners could be US >citizens; that was mostly overturned by the 14th Amd, which declared >everyone born in the US _and subject to the jurisdiction thereof_ to be >a US citizen. That was designed to exempt "Indian Tribes", which the US >treated as separate nations at the time. > >It wasn't until the 20th century that Congress unilaterally abrogated >its treaties with the "Indian Tribes", which put all "Indians" under US >jurisdiction--and made them US citizens as a side effect. > >Today, the exemption only applies to children of diplomats, who are not >subject to US jurisdiction per the Vienna Convention. > >S Thanks for the info. Much of that I lacked info on it. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 19:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e51fd50-4cb4-456f-afb5-7179ba2f65ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159872 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:54:10 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > A cursory review of their blathering indicates that none of them have > _read_ the Constitution; that aligns with their stated beliefs that > (their interpretation of) the Bible is supreme anyway--but further > review of said blathering indicates none have read that either; it's > hard to figure out what any of them _do_ think the law is, other than > whatever crazy idea pops into their head as they're speaking. They actually think very carefully of what they're saying: they're trying to use scare attacks to get votes. Talk radio has been a flood of nonsensical propaganda. To give one example: A town passed a law prohibiting convicted sex offenders from moving into it. Such a convict wanted to live in the town, filed a lawsuit against the law, and won; the court said he had a right to move in. Talk radio went nuts. They screamed that little children would now be snatched off the street by the horrid pervert, thanks to the liberal courts. The truth wasn't so dramatic. The person in question was 18 y/o. He was convicted of statutory rape when he was 16 for a consensual hook up with a 15 y/o. (This in itself is very unusual, normally such situations are not prosecuted). He wanted to live in the town to go to college. His official rating was 'lowest risk'. > If you have probable cause, get a warrant. > > While warrants are sometimes abused, that is rare; the real issue is > that many politicians believe that they shouldn't _need_ to get a > warrant, i.e. that everyone should simply trust their accusations. Depending on the jurisdiction, warrants can be "rubber stamped".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1414466790.477624574.988255.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159860 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk > <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>> dead. >> >> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >> >>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >> >> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >> >>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>> privacy is in trouble. >> >> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >> with the backdoor? >> >> You can't un-ring a bell. > > Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. > >>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >>> them and their alleged privacy. >> >> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >> without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >> actually means. >> >> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. > > Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of > immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They > probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to > remove the US Constitution ? All USians are the children of immigrants - including you if you go back far enough. Most of us are the children of _legal_ immigrants - although some may argue whose laws apply. I don't even have anything against illegal immigrants - go home, apply for a visa, and immigrate like everyone else. I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US citizens. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web