New search engine protects you from NSA

[annunaki]

New search engine protects you from NSA
No data collected, so nothing to give feds if they ask

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/new-searc...-you-from-nsa/

www.zeekly.com

[Wolverine]

Hello Annunaki,

Another search engine is:

www.duckduckgo.com

[woodturner]

New search engine protects you from NSA
No data collected, so nothing to give feds if they ask

That is their claim, but it is not possible to enforce or implement such a system.

Various sources, which likely include the government, collect and store ALL internet traffic. Encryption methods have a secret "back door" to allow the government to decrypt messages more easily. As a result, such search engines can do little to "protect" you from government organizations that want to know.

There are a number of sites that claim to allow you to browse the web anonymously, not to collect information, etc. A number of users of those sites have been prosecuted by various governments, exposing the myth that it is possible to hide information or be anonymous on the web.

If you are concerned about the government getting your information, the only way to protect it is to keep it in your head - never write it down, talk about it, put it on the internet, etc. One has to wonder if and when they will be able to read thoughts, though.

The more fundamental question might be "why do we care"? What information do we have that we would not want the government to have? If we are law abiding citizens, what is the problem?

[woodturner]

The bio of the guy is curious, to say the least. Might want to read that, too.

[annunaki]

"The more fundamental question might be "why do we care"? What information do we have that we would not want the government to have? If we are law abiding citizens, what is the problem?"

The "Problem" is they lack PROBABLE CAUSE

Then using your logic, they should be allowed to enter your home "Just to Look Around" without needing a search warrant, go through your drawers, personal papers etc.

"Why do we care ?" Because :
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[69]

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a criminal trial.

That Why We Should Care !

[woodturner]

Then using your logic, they should be allowed to enter your home "Just to Look Around" without needing a search warrant, go through your drawers, personal papers etc.

I think that is a very different analogy. Writing something on the internet is more like shouting on a street corner or posting a note on a bulletin board - it is already a "public" activity. Even if we use a more restrictive analogy such as comparing sending an email to mailing a letter, we don't have an expectation of absolute privacy, since mailed items are already subject to review and inspection and every mailed item is x-rayed and tested with other methodologies.

In any event, "unreasonable" is arguably a subjective term and must ultimately be determined by the courts. There have been a number of cases involving traffic stops and what is "reasonable", and it's likely the court rulings would surprise many people - it takes very little to establish probable cause. As a practical matter, a person looking to "game the system" can establish probable cause in nearly every situation.

Extending those conclusions to the present discussion, one could argue that simply using the internet provides probable cause. Let us not forget that, for certain individuals, using the internet is illegal.

[alpha]

Here's a link to a New York Times article. I am not advocating using this browser for illegal purposes. This was in a Kim Komando newsletter.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...chnology&_r=1&

[annunaki]

The more fundamental question might be "why do we care"? What information do we have that we would not want the government to have? If we are law abiding citizens, what is the problem?

Or said another way "What's wrong with the Gov't CREATING A PROFILE on you if you have nothing to hide" ?

Yeah Right !

Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You - Government Road Block Check Points
Have all Papers ready for Inspection - Brought to you by "If You Have Nothing To Hide"

[annunaki]

My response is "So do you have curtains?" or "Can I see your credit-card bills for the last year?"
So my response to the "If you have nothing to hide ... " argument is simply, "I don't need to justify my position. You need to justify yours. Come back with a warrant."
I don't have anything to hide. But I don't have anything I feel like showing you, either.
If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have a life.
Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
It's not about having anything to hide, it's about things not being anyone else's business.
Bottom line, Joe Stalin would [have] loved it. Why should anyone have to say more?

[annunaki]

Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'

Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Pri...ven-if/127461/

[woodturner]

I don't have anything to hide. But I don't have anything I feel like showing you, either.

My point and opinion, though, is that the privacy you think you have is an illusion - cameras can "see" through curtains, and your credit card bills are already available without a warrant. Everything about you can be legally accessed, except possibly the thoughts in your head that you never voice or share.

I don't particularly disagree with your thought that we ought to have some privacy, just pointing out that we already have essentially no privacy.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

There was an interesting article in IEEE Spectrum a year or two ago on this subject. They observed that identity theft and similar crimes can arise because we try to maintain the illusion of privacy, when in reality there is no real privacy. The proposed solution was to be open about everything, since there is no value in stealing public information. Interesting premise, particularly given that our "private" information currently is only readily available to those we don't want to have it.

[cwsmith]

The "why do we care?" question is interesting, for certainly we should!

However, my thinking is more along the lines of "why should we care when the government does it (in thier search for possible terrorism), when we haven't so much as raised an eyebrow when every other commercial enterprise does it?

"Cookies" are prevalent on everyone's computer and no computer logging into the internet is free of any kind of invasive information gathering.

We all know (and most accept) the fact that a work-based computer can be under constant watch. Although I've been out of work for a decade now, I know that our systems group could look at any computer on the network, right down to every keystroke... and including mirroring your screen display.... BUT, it's their computer and they pay for the system.

Likewise perhaps, is that the internet itself is largely government sustained and if you are out there, then surely there will be some measure of surveilance... government or private. The security, if there is any security, is simply in the massive volume of data from the millions of users online at any moment in time. Finding your letter in the postal system would be significantly easier and we all have, at one time or another, used the government mail system.

I think the point is that we are making a big deal because we might get monitored... yet there has yet to be proof of anything more than 'number to number' contacts with regard to frequency and location. (Or did I miss something here?)

I guess I just don't see the alarm when we go onto a very public system like the internet, or worse our cell phones, and think they are totally private. Even with a proper radio you can monitor cell phone conversations if you have the technical savvy and desire. With home-based cordless phones it's even easier than that.

If you really want privacy or secrecy, then you shouldn't be relying on public modes of communications. But again, when we hear that the government is investigating 'content', then that would be my "pushing the alarm button". But in the meantime, I'm a lot more concerned with terrorists using both the internet and the phone system to collaborate on their next target.

My opinion anyway,

CWS

[annunaki]

The importance of Protecting Your Rights - is that if you give an inch, you'll eventually lose a foot or more.

On 8/12 I said-
Then using your logic, they should be allowed to enter your home "Just to Look Around" without needing a search warrant, go through your drawers, personal papers etc.



Now read this to see what I predicted-

Obamacare troops planning home visits
Constitutional attorney: 'This is not a voluntary program'
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/obamacare...g-home-visits/

[jdon]

TRY ADDING ALL CAPS TO YOUR BOLD AND ITALICS! :d

[Black wallnut]

TRY ADDING ALL CAPS TO YOUR BOLD AND ITALICS!

fify! (protip: case matters in code.)

Folks this thread is coming very close to a political discussion.