Setec Astronomy

[Jennifer]

anything that's anti-Hillary is automatically "trying to help Donald Trump become the CiC".

In the specific context of this particular time of a year divisible by four, you really think that statement is controversial? I have no problem saying the opposite as well: any anti-Trump information helps Hillary. But that doesn't mean I believe that (for example) the women who complained about Trump's groping them are Hillary shills -- even if their claims are helping her and harming Trump.

[Taktix®]

anything that's anti-Hillary is automatically "trying to help Donald Trump become the CiC".

In the specific context of this particular time of a year divisible by four, you really think that statement is controversial? I have no problem saying the opposite as well: any anti-Trump information helps Hillary. But that doesn't mean I believe that (for example) the women who complained about Trump's groping them are Hillary shills -- even if their claims are helping her and harming Trump.

Not controversial, just inaccurate and loaded. One might take the Wikileaks info and decide to vote 3rd Party or not vote at all. Are such people now considered Trump supporters too?

[Mo]

For all the criticism the Oliver got for railing on Johnson and Stein, at least he respected them and their supporters enough to treat them like candidates, not spoilers.

[Jennifer]

anything that's anti-Hillary is automatically "trying to help Donald Trump become the CiC".

In the specific context of this particular time of a year divisible by four, you really think that statement is controversial? I have no problem saying the opposite as well: any anti-Trump information helps Hillary. But that doesn't mean I believe that (for example) the women who complained about Trump's groping them are Hillary shills -- even if their claims are helping her and harming Trump.

Not controversial, just inaccurate and loaded. One might take the Wikileaks info and decide to vote 3rd Party or not vote at all. Are such people now considered Trump supporters too?

Trump or Hillary, depending on who's making the criticism. And given the reality of our winner-take-all electoral system, it's true that neither Johnson nor Stein nor McMullin will be elected our next president. I say this as someone who voted for Johnson in 2012, remember.

[Taktix®]

anything that's anti-Hillary is automatically "trying to help Donald Trump become the CiC".

In the specific context of this particular time of a year divisible by four, you really think that statement is controversial? I have no problem saying the opposite as well: any anti-Trump information helps Hillary. But that doesn't mean I believe that (for example) the women who complained about Trump's groping them are Hillary shills -- even if their claims are helping her and harming Trump.

Not controversial, just inaccurate and loaded. One might take the Wikileaks info and decide to vote 3rd Party or not vote at all. Are such people now considered Trump supporters too?

Trump or Hillary, depending on who's making the criticism. And given the reality of our winner-take-all electoral system, it's true that neither Johnson nor Stein nor McMullin will be elected our next president. I say this as someone who voted for Johnson in 2012, remember.

Being generally aware of our political system, both by design and in practical application, I still content (EDIT:contend! Argh!) that there's a sizable difference between not voting for Hillary and being a Trump supporter. Every friend of mine who is even one degree left of center has tried to convince me otherwise, including claiming I'm a "dim bulb" for not seeing that voting 3rd party is "objectively racist"...

[Jennifer]

Every friend of mine who is even one degree left of center has tried to convince me otherwise, including claiming I'm a "dim bulb" for not seeing that voting 3rd party is "objectively racist"...

It's not "objectively racist," but I do understand the logic of those who make these arguments. Especially considering the fact that, for someone like me, and you too, a Trump presidency would suck "only" in the sense that yeah, it really sucks living in a country run by a bigoted asshole who knows nothing about economics beyond how to file multiple bankruptcies, it sucks knowing the rest of the world thinks we're a laughingstock at best for electing such a cretin ... but that's entirely different from the suckitude of belonging to one of the groups Trump has specifically targeted as un-American outliers. For example: "I'm a Muslim, or at least my complexion and/or name make people think I'm a Muslim, and our president during his second debate openly said that people like me should be held responsible for stopping terrorism." Or the far-worse "The president wants to deport me solely because of my religion or ancestry." Or the suckitude of "Though I'm an American-born citizen, my ancestors originally came from Mexico, and President Trump has said that people with Mexican ancestry, like that Indiana-born federal judge, are inherently untrustworthy."

I still remember how offensive I found it when the first president Bush said something like "No, I don't think atheists should be considered American citizens -- after all, the phrase is 'One nation under God.'" But that was just him pontificating in an interview (after leaving office, IIRC), not him making an actual no-shit policy proposal. But if he had proposed making this an actual law when he ran for re-election, I admit I'd use a gimlet eye to look at any religious person who said "Hell yeah, I'm voting third-party for Perot! I mean, I don't like Bush, but the idea of him winning re-election rather than losing to Clinton ain't no skin off my churchgoin' nose." In such circumstances, I wouldn't go so far as to say "A vote for Perot is a vote for religious bigotry" ... but it does indicate a voter who doesn't think such bigotry is, like, bad enough to actually vote against or anything. "I don't want to see atheists stripped of their citizenship or anything, but no way in hell am I votin' for no Democrat." "I don't want to see Muslims kicked out of the country or anything, but no way in hell am I votin' for no Democrat."

[Jennifer]

For all the criticism the Oliver got for railing on Johnson and Stein, at least he respected them and their supporters enough to treat them like candidates, not spoilers.

With the way our electoral college and two-party system works, "candidate" and "spoiler" are not mutually exclusive. Polls show that the fifth-party candidate, conservative Independent Evan McMullin, might actually win Utah's electoral votes. But he certainly won't win the electoral college -- he's not even on the ballot in most states -- he's a candidate and maybe a spoiler.

[Taktix®]

TITANPOINTE
The NSA’s Spy Hub in New York, Hidden in Plain Sight

Come to think of it, I used to walk by a suspiciously windowless AT&T building.

Right here:

[Hugh Akston]

Apple has found a way to head off repeats of the phonebreak debate:

Apple has a hidden feature for you in its iPhones: call logs going back as far as four months are stored in near real-time in the iCloud. That’s the warning today from a Russian provider of iPhone hacking tools, Elcomsoft, which claimed the feature was automatic and there was no way to turn it off bar shutting down iCloud Drive altogether.

Whilst it was well-known that iCloud backups would store call logs, contacts and plenty of other valuable data, users should be concerned to learn that their communications records are consistently being sent to Apple servers without explicit permission, said Elcomsoft CEO Vladimir Katalov. Even if those backups are disabled, he added, the call logs continue making their way to the iCloud, Katalov said.

Whereas Apple has declined to assist FBI forensics specialists in breaking its own security, it can easily access and provide iCloud data where the Cupertino tech titan is happy a legal warrant has been signed off by the Department of Justice. Indeed, in the case of the San Bernardino shooter, where the FBI demanded Apple help it hack the iPhone 5C of Syed Rizwan Farook, Apple revealed it had already handed over access to his iCloud. In its data access guide for law enforcement, Apple says the iCloud information that’s available includes email logs and content, text messages, photos, documents, contacts, calendars, bookmarks and iOS device backups.

[JD]

Earlier this year, the architect of China's "Great Firewall" found his own attempts to load web pages denied during a presentation he was giving. And then in view of the audience he attempted to load up a VPN to get around it!

[Mo]

Good to see that the snooper's bill is so limited. I can't see any legitimate reason why the Food Standards Agency shouldn't be allowed to see your browsing and phone history.

[Mo]

Poor Snowden.

[Andrew]

Least transparent administration makes push for transparency in its waning days.

“It’s his final message to the nation on what he’s done and how he views these issues,” Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security advisor, told reporters before the president’s speech. “It’s something he would’ve done no matter who won the election.”

Oh, I'm sure he'd be doing the same if Hillary had won.

[D.A. Ridgely]

I think he would, actually. There was never any love lost between them. Do you think Hillary even for one nanosecond got over the way he "robbed" her of her "rightful" nomination eight years ago? And now he has nothing to lose by "giving up" stuff he no longer needs or wants.

[JD]

A couple years old, but...a security researcher managed to reproduce the thumbprint of Germany's defense minister based on photographs. Again: fingerprints are crap for security purposes.

[JasonL]

I think they work well as an extension of multifactor credentials though. You may get a password or you may get a device or you may get a fingerprint, or you may spoof location/behavior recognition, but man it's hard to do all of it at the same time.

[D.A. Ridgely]

I think they work well as an extension of multifactor credentials though. You may get a password or you may get a device or you may get a fingerprint, or you may spoof location/behavior recognition, but man it's hard to do all of it at the same time.

Which is why it would be nice if android phones with fingerprint detection would allow you to use that in addition to a password or pin code.

[JD]

There is evidence that Best Buy Geek Squad employees are secretly working for the FBI, performing unauthorized searches of computers brought in, in hopes of earning a bonus from the FBI for finding something incriminating.

tl;dr version: a man brought his computer to Geek Squad because it wouldn't boot up. A technician found (what appeared to be) child porn on it and the FBI was notified. Nothing wrong with that, except that the file was found in unallocated space...which is not something you would be able to see except with forensic tools designed for the purpose, which you would have no reason to deploy in a case of "this computer won't boot up". Furthermore, court records show that the FBI intentionally lied to a judge about where and how the image was found.

[Warren]

There is evidence that Best Buy Geek Squad employees are secretly working for the FBI, performing unauthorized searches of computers brought in, in hopes of earning a bonus from the FBI for finding something incriminating.

tl;dr version: a man brought his computer to Geek Squad because it wouldn't boot up. A technician found (what appeared to be) child porn on it and the FBI was notified. Nothing wrong with that, except that the file was found in unallocated space...which is not something you would be able to see except with forensic tools designed for the purpose, which you would have no reason to deploy in a case of "this computer won't boot up". Furthermore, court records show that the FBI intentionally lied to a judge about where and how the image was found.

It would also seem that having violated his 4th amendment rights and conducted a search with a bogus warrant, they came up with bupkis but went ahead and charged him for the not-so-porn image, which they know they can't convict on.

[thoreau]

So _Chuck_ is inspired by a true story.

Sent from a phone so their may be speling errors and autocorrect snafu's.

[Hugh Akston]

There is evidence that Best Buy Geek Squad employees are secretly working for the FBI, performing unauthorized searches of computers brought in, in hopes of earning a bonus from the FBI for finding something incriminating.

tl;dr version: a man brought his computer to Geek Squad because it wouldn't boot up. A technician found (what appeared to be) child porn on it and the FBI was notified. Nothing wrong with that, except that the file was found in unallocated space...which is not something you would be able to see except with forensic tools designed for the purpose, which you would have no reason to deploy in a case of "this computer won't boot up". Furthermore, court records show that the FBI intentionally lied to a judge about where and how the image was found.

It would also seem that having violated his 4th amendment rights and conducted a search with a bogus warrant, they came up with bupkis but went ahead and charged him for the not-so-porn image, which they know they can't convict on.

Might as well roll the dice if you're playing with house money.

[Mo]

It's a good thing Best Buy has a ton of money lying around to pay for lawsuits.

[Kolohe]

But really, if you know you have illegal stuff on your computer, why are you bringing it to Best Buy for repairs?

[Andrew]

It's a Thing that computer repair people look for shit on computers and report them. Even without being on the pay of anyone. Lots of child porn people have been caught that way. One can assume any computer going to a shop for repair for any reason is going to get a full scan, and the 4th amendment doesn't help there.

As can be expected, determining whether someone is acting at the government's behest involves balancing tests and factors so it can easily be tilted in their favor.

[JD]

It's a Thing that computer repair people look for shit on computers and report them. Even without being on the pay of anyone. Lots of child porn people have been caught that way.

One can assume any computer going to a shop for repair for any reason is going to get a full scan, and the 4th amendment doesn't help there.

Yes to the first part, no to the second part. As some people have pointed out, plenty of techs rummage through people's computers, and sometimes they get in trouble for doing it too, and sometimes it's amazing how oblivious people seem to be about the nature of handing over your computer to someone else when it has illegal stuff on it.

But "One can assume any computer going to a shop for repair for any reason is going to get a full scan" - not from a moral/legal perspective, I don't think. As the original article points out, the only way you would ever know this data existed was if you intentionally deployed a tool designed to look for deleted files. And that just doesn't make any sense in most cases. It's loosely analogous to taking your car to the mechanic because it needs its wheels rebalanced, and the mechanic ripping apart your seat cushions at the behest of the FBI.