(Off-topic from http://masterrussian.net/f16/edward-...-russia-21627/ )
TOR is proved to be unsecure. I2P only. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Printable View
(Off-topic from http://masterrussian.net/f16/edward-...-russia-21627/ )
TOR is proved to be unsecure. I2P only. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Really?! Well I know that you know your stuff, so if you say so...Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
I tried I2P mail a few years ago, but I dropped it because I didn't really feel my security needs were so dramatically high.. I'll check it out again.
However it's a PRINCIPLE, if nothing else. I will not have old Blighty or "The Land of the Free" or anyone else stealing and storing my data!
I can't believe they actually cracked 128 bit encryption though! Isn't that supposed to be essentially impossible with today's computers?
However I noticed that my wacky VPN provider just started offering 256 bit encryption out of, among their other options.
Apparently the Americans are SAVING the encrypted data that they capture, to unencrypt in the future, when they hope to have better processing power.
Meanwhile, the cooling power they need for this gigantic data facility is mindblowing. No way Russia is wasting money on this kind of project, plus I think somebody would have blown the whistle if this was going on. I don't think a lot of the serious backbones of the internet goes through Russia anyway, so it would only be domestic information. I don't think Russia does that on any grand scale. Probably nothing more than checking social network and occassional tapping of emails and phones of targettied people.
I hope Russia stays out of this new Cold War in Cyberspace.
Yeah allright. I am not surprised to hear that either. It's definitely what I expected and I don't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-learner
However, they ONLY listen to people they actually suspect of something, essentially.
They don't take ALL of EVERYONE'S data and store it for future reference, which seems to be what the USA is doing.
I think everyone accepts that police will have to investigate online activities of suspected criminals. But the difference is when you just spy on everyone as a matter of principle.
The whole "metadata only" claim has been contradicted several times. It seems almost certain that they take ALL text from EVERYONE, and then analyse it afterwards. And they can pull out whatever they want in the future, supposedly,
Obviously there is technical limitations to how effectively you can handle such large data quantities today. But in the future it might be a piece of cake to cross reference everything and build a file on everyone. Everything they ever said to anyone, essentially. Then they can go ahead and give anyone a security clearance score based on their online behaviour, and zoom in on people of interest and possibly victimize those with a bad rating.
All in secret of course..
TOR is insecure at exit nodes. Really no way around it. Passwords can be harvested. I think it is in one of those Wired kind of articles.
Are you sure about that? Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm no expert. I read that this is a hyped rumour, and not in fact true. Plus it's completely down to the people running the exit nodes. Most of them are activists and believers in the ideals of TOR. And there are many thousands. Even if somebody set up a honey trap exit node, I still don't think they can trace your communication all the way back to you. It's highly theoretical anyway, and you'd have to be suspected for something really major for anyone to bother. I don't want to give an example, because it would probably probably trigger the alerts with GCHQ... But you can imagine the kind of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
With the randomness of TOR, they'd have to make a large proportion of exit nodes compromised. Another strategy is to simply pick an exit node in a country that is not on super friendly terms with the country where you live. For example, I could pick an exit node in Iran, for example. It simply doesn't seem likely that anyone in Iran would co-operate with anyone in the UK with stuff like that. And you'd absolutely have to be a security service to do it.
I really only use TOR for occasionally listening to Pandora (after it was closed down outside the USA) so I wouldn't know.
But if I had some genuine reason for seriously needing to protect my identity I'd investigate it properly.
But like it-ogo I too have heard that I2P is somehow better. It's a lot of trouble to have to go to, in a supposedly free society though! Not to mention it's so slow you can't really use it for any longer periods.
To the degree that they MUST spy on people, they should spy on people who they have very clear and substantiated suspiciouns against. Nobody else!
Besides, if the USA and its allies stop neo-imperialism in the Middle East, there'd be no serious threat to worry about.
You have a very good point. Someone in an office could have said, 'we don't want people to use TOR, so plant a story...' On the flip side of that is that the TOR was originally developed by naval intelligence or some such, and it seems that there is a significant amount of official use, so they would have their own servers, and be able to do all the exit node monitoring they want. Doesn't the majority of traffic go through the US? Also official use needs other users to use the system, otherwise it becomes obvious that the major users are official. So they want other traffic for cover. 'absolutely have to be a security service to do it' yes, they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
So its a question of how much effort it takes, and do you have a good reason. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...ssword_breach/
.
How might you know that invigorated by such potluck Al-Qaeda and its cohorts should not decide to promulgate “pure” Islam even more vehemently and, goaded by insatiable desire to proselytize, would not attempt to disseminate the seeds of the teaching round the globe, decimating those infidels who shall dare to resist or disagree?Quote:
Besides, if the USA and its allies stop neo-imperialism in the Middle East, there'd be no serious threat to worry about.
I don't KNOW for sure, obviously, but it's an approach that should be tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen_
We should:
Stop telling them that they need to have "democracy" when it essentially doesn't work in the Middle East.
Stop passing judgment on their culture and religion.
Refrain from meddling in their internal politics.
Not exploit their countries for oil but let them sell the oil themselves and respect that their countries won the oil lottery and that we are too dependent on oil.
Let Israel take care of itself and not pump American money into Israel. God will take care of his chosen people according to his plan and does not need "help".
If this happened the moslems would have nothing to complain about and would probably focus on their own countries instead of hating the West..
I don't think the general West/Middle Eastern problem is comparable Russia's problems with extremism. After all, that takes place within Russia itself and is a more complex issue.
The first rule counter-terrorist forces have to learn is, once you've started to communicate with terrorists, you're defeated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
I disagree, I believe that all opportunities should be made to negotiate with terrorists because it weakens them and divides them.
If rebel/terrorist leaders have spent the last 10-20 years telling their recruits and their supporters that you are the devil, the great satan, the infidel, the worst thing ever to walk the Earth, and then they sit down at the table to talk with you, what does that say about them? The true believers, those who swallowed all of the propaganda over the years, may very well see it as a crass betrayal by old and tired leaders who want to cut a deal. Their supporters will also see it as a sign of weakness and a backing down from the revolutionary message.
Additionally, you can use peace talks to drive a wedge into a rebel movement and cause some to disarm, others to walk away completely, and others to form their own ultra radical groups with far fewer members than they had before. Think about what the British did with the IRA.
The talks don’t have to go anywhere… Offer terms that the elite/leaders cannot possibly accept but that many of their supporters would be willing and ready to accept, this will further alienate the leaders from their supporters. Simply negotiating doesn’t mean you will reach an agreement. In the end, you will have the moral high ground because you attempted to resolve things peacefully and they refused to accept a deal that the media will declare was reasonable and fair.
Always talk/negotiate with terrorists, always.
That seems like an assumption that all terrorists are dumbQuote:
Originally Posted by OhioPatriot
If that would be true then there would be no successful terrorist attacks whatsoever
There has been a lot of talking and negotiating and terrorism is still on the rise. It only shrinks when there's less military interventions in the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioPatriot
Resurgence of al Qaeda | RANDQuote:
Even as they debate the appropriate U.S. military role in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the presidential candidates need to address the fact that al Qaeda has expanded its global presence. Since its establishment in 1988, al Qaeda’s strength has risen and fallen in a series of waves. Despite the death of Osama bin Laden, the Arab Spring has ushered in a fourth wave as al Qaeda has tried to push into North Africa and the Middle East.
One significant trend is the expansion of al Qaeda’s global network. The leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in Iraq, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (in North Africa) have sworn bayat, or loyalty, to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and provided him with funding, global influence, and a cadre of trained fighters. None of these affiliate organizations existed a decade ago. But, over the past several years, attacks by these affiliates have increased.
Are you really sure they’re so open-minded and above-board? I deem the opposite scenario is much more probable. As soon as they accumulate enough recourses so generously granted in your proposition, the “holly warriors” immediately will start off full-scale global jihad, exactly as their “founding fathers” entrusted them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
The Philosopher of Islamic Terror - NYTimes.comQuote:
This vanguard of true Muslims was going to undertake the renovation of Islam and of civilization all over the world. The vanguard was going to turn against the false Muslims and ''hypocrites'' and do as Muhammad had done, which was to found a new state, based on the Koran. And from there, the vanguard was going to resurrect the caliphate and take Islam to all the world, just as Muhammad had done.
No judgment, only evidence:Quote:
Stop passing judgment on their culture and religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYYBlPWYb7Y
Hanna supports 'social democracy', socialism and probably communism (Deleted. L.). Those ideologies support the continuation of the status quo which is multiculturalism and leaning over backwards for the groups that eventually get involved in terrorist activity.
But, saying that, I would not read into anything the USA does that involves 'fighting terrorism' or anything related to that subject. The 'American' viewpoint in this forum is a joke, imho. You either have leftists lecturing or the 'status quo' "Republican types" supporting the mainstream neo-cons. What is going on in the USA is a sham and it's an obvious ploy to continue 'police state' policies in the name of 'fighting terrorism.' It's about money and controlling/enslaving people.
You have no clue what I support and you very obviously got the wrong end of the stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
But go ahead and slap the labels "communist" and "terrorist" on those who disagree with you!
What a refreshing new approach.... Never been done before, eh?
If you come to an international forum with people from across the world, I suggest that you come with an open mind rather than hiding behind the prejudice and stereotypes of your own background. If so, what's the point of reaching out?
This is a Russian forum where the majority of users are Russians who are here to help language learners. So why not show a little respect towards their history and current politics? Take the prejudice elsewhere. What would you think if a Russian person joined an English learning forum and started spitting out mis-informed cliches about your country, accusing people of this and that...
Following the logic of analogy he supposed to think that the person brings enlightenment and sacred knowledge to blind sheep of that forum :mrgreen:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
At least it looks like what Mr. 14 thinks of himself
I noticed that he always "knows better" about democracy, politics and "proper" human behavior for all the people in all the countries and obviously cannot be silent about it. I think he would make a great preacher, just need to choose suitable religion :)
Whatever. You stated in a previous post that you are leftist politically, I think you even mentioned social democracy. In addition, you conveniently edited my post distorting everything (which is typical): I stated... "and probably communism..." and the part you omitted, " “Those ideologies support the continuation of the status quo.....” and "...and leaning over backwards for the groups that eventually get involved in terrorist activity." That's very typical to distort someone's statements and manipulate what was said. I was only responding to what you posted yourself. Perhaps, you have amnesia. It's no wonder that Lampada 'likes' your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
I was just saying leftists have the tendency to be soft on terrorism - that doesn't mean I was stating you are. I was speaking of other tendencies they are accused of. Anyway, it speaks volumes that you make such rash conclusions and then distort my actual statements.
Dear People! Could you please stop being personal and try to follow Lincoln's advise?
“We should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
http://forum.ourprivate.net/images/smilies/marfa.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
...Quote:
"On August 5 malicious software (malware) in the form of a Java Script (JS) attack code was discovered embedded in multiple websites hosted by the anonymous hosting company Freedom Hosting (FH), the largest hosting company on the anonymous Tor network. Initial research into the malware by experts suggests that it originated from and returned private data back to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or other US government agencies...."
...Quote:
“The information about foreign funding for Navalny’s electoral campaign was confirmed during checks,” the Prosecutor General’s Office said in an online statement published Monday.
“More than 300 foreign individuals and organizations, and anonymous donations from 46 countries (including the United States, Finland, Britain, Sweden and Canada) from 347 IP addresses have been sent to the electronic fund of Navalny and members of his campaign headquarters,” the statement said.
Navalny's Moscow mayor bid took illegal foreign cash - prosecutors | POLITICS | The Moscow NewsQuote:
Yandex.Money said that they had not been contacted by prosecutors, and pointed out that only individuals, not organizations, can make donations through their system.
“We do not understand within what parameters the Prosecutor General’s Office has reached its conclusions about foreigners,” said Yandex.Money spokeperson Asya Melkumova, Russian radio station Ekho Moskvy reported. “IP addresses only tell you about a person’s physical location, not about his citizenship.”
Snowden2 wanted)))
Well the sponsors could be Russians living abroad, couldn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen_
But on principle YES, imo Navalny is himself corrupt and lacks principle if he accepts money from foreign groups that do not have the best interests of the people he is supposed to represent, at heart. In this, Muscovites.
The only way to have democracy is to LIMIT the funds that are available to ALL candidates involved, so that none of them have more money at their disposal than the others. That way they are forced to rely on their message and programme, not on flashy ads or cheesy campaigns.
Nobody should be able to use their own private funds if they happen to be rich, or accept donations from others, corporations, foreign organisations etc.
So part of the election must be ongoing audits of what funds the parties and candidates spend.
Otherwise the interests of whatever groups have the most money will be able to turn around public opinions and win.
Arrgh! Today I overheard this female, very loud American colleague of mine loudly telling everybody how Belarus (according to her) checks the contents of peoples laptops when entering or leaving the country. She allegedly "knew" this because she had worked in a neighbouring country which will remain un-named. She went on about what a terribly oppressive dictatorship it is in Belarus although she hadn't actually visited.
I got SO irritated, as I visited Belarus, WITH a laptop and they seriously could not have cared less. This person is senior to me and very loud and aggressive personality, so I simply pointed out that whatever the norm it certainly didn't happen to me. (and I didn't see it happening to anyone else either).
Meanwhile this is exactly what happens in the USA Homeland Security’s laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez - Salon.com
I'd love to go there to see some friends and buy cheap electronics, but I don't want to leave my fingerprint, be cross examined about my political views (apparently it's expanded to full-out Israel style security "interview") and I'd certainly not want to risk having my laptop sezed.
Every day I'm increasingly shocked at what is being revealed.
Don't know how to explain to non-IT people the absolutely mind-blowing possible outcomes of this new world order.
It is making possible a totalitarian dictatorship worthy of the antichrist predictions in the book of revelation. Not being able to buy and sell without the mark of the beast could be but a few decades away. I think the Snowdedn revelations indicate the birthing pangs of something worse than Orwell could ever have dreamed up. We will remember 2013 as the year when people woke up and did (or did not) make the right choice.
Quote:
A FOIA request from the ACLU revealed that in the 18-month period beginning October 1, 2008, more than 6,600 people — roughly half of whom are American citizens — were subjected to electronic device searches at the border by DHS, all without a search warrant.