backtop

Internet German Policeware Plan Causes Outrage
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - September 5, 2007 12:15 AM
Print 94 comment(s) - last by vortmax.. on Sep 13 at 2:16 PM
The German government wants to use malware to secretly monitor terror suspects

The German government drew harsh criticism after announcing plans to use trojans and other forms of malware to monitor the computer activities of potential terror suspects.  News about the "policeware" leaked late last week in the German media, but German government officials are only now openly discussing specifics. 

Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has not released an official copy of the bill, but several key points have been leaked to the media, including how the government would send what appears to be a regular e-mail from official German government organizations, with the trojan secretly attached to the e-mail.  The trojan would then allow the sender full access to the system's contents.

"[The law] will cover a serious and scandalous hole in our information that has arisen through technical changes in recent years," said Stefan Kaller, a Schaeuble spokesman.

Even though the government promises to use the software in extreme cases only, it still caused outrage among citizens and government rivals.

Spokespeople representing the Free Democrats believe the proposal is an intrusion into privacy that cannot be tolerated.  However, Chancellor Angela Merkel supports the measure, but does expect to have several serious discussions with government bodies and experts before anything is officially signed into law.

Specific details about how the policeware works remains classified.

The United States government previously acknowledged the use of policeware in 2001, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents entered a suspect's house and installed a key-logger on his computer.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also used its Computer & Internet Protocol Address Verifier (CIPAV) software to help arrest a suspect in Washington - but the exact details as to how the software works remains confidential.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
A little too far, don't you think...
By Micronite on 9/5/2007 12:34:27 AM , Rating: 5
I consider myself a conservative American and am usually in support of sacrificing a little privacy in exchange for security. However, this would really tick me off. Not necessarily because it's the governement, but because it's yet another thing that will reside on my relatives' computers and may cause them grief. Although, if I had to choose, I'd rather have the government snooping my keystrokes than some guy trying to steal my identity.

All your data are belong to us




RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By redbone75 on 9/5/2007 1:44:56 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I consider myself a conservative American and am usually in support of sacrificing a little privacy in exchange for security.

I would never sacrifice a little privacy in exchange for security. You'll sacrifice a little at first, then a little more, then a little more, all in the name of security. Soon, you'll have no privacy, only government.
quote:
Not necessarily because it's the governement...

It should especially piss you off because it's the government. Do you think you would not be looked at because you feel you're not a terrorist? What if the very people you voted for started doing things you vehemently oppose? You then decide to voice your opinion in a few emails to some friends, and that's all you do BUT the government decides to keep you under watch because... well, they don't need a reason. It's a law you voted for in order to increase your security.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 8:30:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What if the very people you voted for started doing things you vehemently oppose?


Dont they always? There isnt a single political party, or politician for that matter, who does EVERYTHING I support. Its about politicians doing what is best for the nation and the people who are citizens of that nation. They are not here to protect illegal immigrants & people who are here to cause harm to the nation and its citizens.

quote:
You then decide to voice your opinion in a few emails to some friends, and that's all you do BUT the government decides to keep you under watch because... well, they don't need a reason


And the point is? Its not like they are breaking down your door and arresting you because you do not like conservatives or liberals or whoever.

Dont make this computer tapping to be like every citizen is under watch because its not true and you know it. Its a technology that they can use to monitor the communications of those people they reason to believe are terrorists, drug dealers, murders, etc. All of which I do not want roaming around my neighborhood, county, state, country.

It is not a means to invade on the public, it is a means to help protect the public by new technology.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By cbo on 9/5/2007 9:07:26 AM , Rating: 3
Just because your not arrested doesn't make it right for the government to snoop on you. Nowadays it easy to call someone a terrorist like the McCarthy days. I truly feel for the ones responsible for protecting the nation. It hard to do the right thing while protect citizens privacy and still be effective. But we are expected to be held to a high standard and so should they.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 9:50:40 AM , Rating: 3
Again, they are not snooping on "you". They are monitoring activities of people that they have legitimate reason to be concerned about. Its not that big of a deal.

For a long time now, they've been doing stakeouts, phone tapping, monitoring your bills & call logs, etc. Monitoring another form of communication during an investigation is just a step forward to using modern day technology to do so.


By cbo on 9/5/2007 10:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For a long time now, they've been doing stakeouts, phone tapping, monitoring your bills & call logs, etc. Monitoring another form of communication during an investigation is just a step forward to using modern day technology to do so.


I have no problem with those done in the past because they where done legally. Probable cause and a warrant sign by a judge.
So why not legitimize this process. The government has show in the past that it will circumnavigate the establish procedures for oversight and accountability. As much effort they expend on trying to find ways to spy on people quickly. They should exert the same amount of energy to expedite the system, yet still maintain oversight and accountability.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By S3anister on 9/5/2007 2:09:39 AM , Rating: 3
I consider myself strongly disliking you.

quote:
I'd rather have the government snooping my keystrokes than some guy trying to steal my identity.


I'd rather have death than a severe lack of liberty... oh wait i think some famous founder of our country said that, like maybe... Patrick Henry.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By Polynikes on 9/5/2007 7:50:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

quote:
In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This phrasing was also the motto in Historical Review of Pennsylvania, attributed to Franklin

It's important to note that this sentiment, with many variations, was much used in the Revolutionary period by Franklin and others.


http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04...


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2007 8:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
> "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."...attributed to Franklin


I rather think he was referring to Henry's quote of, "give me liberty or give me death".


By retrospooty on 9/5/2007 10:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
No, that was Franklin, and it is correctly quoted.


By Polynikes on 9/5/2007 12:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably right, now that I look back at what he said, but the Franklin quote is more appropriate in this case, methinks.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By retrospooty on 9/5/2007 9:37:33 AM , Rating: 2
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

LOL... I was gonna post that Ben Fraklin quote, but you beat me to it. Too bas people like him dont run the country anymore. Now we have the weasels and chickens running the show.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/5/2007 12:36:37 PM , Rating: 3
If people like Ben Franklin ran the country, you'd have a lot of upset atheists...

A few weeks before his death at age 84, Benjamin Franklin summarized his religious beliefs, here they are:

You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it.

Here is my creed.

I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.
That he governs by his providence.
That he ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.
That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By retrospooty on 9/5/2007 3:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not really... His beliefs (as you posted) are in a higher power that he worships, and that we should be good to each other, and do good things in this life... This does not mean integration of church and state. He was a big proponent of separation, and the right to worship as you believe, whatever your beleifs are.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/6/2007 12:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
"This does not mean integration of church and state."

I'd have to disagree somewhat on this for the following reasons:

If the very morals in which he lived his life according to are based on those of the Bible, then how can there really be a true separation of chuch & state? For example, our US laws regarding murder and theft (among many others) are specifically related to and based on Biblical principals. That is how the majority of the laws were develped in the first place for the US.

On a related note: I think the original meaning of "separation of church & state" has been tainted throughout the years to such a degree that the very mention of God or anything like that by a politicial (especially a president) causes an uproar.

There is no way to truly separate church and state, which is not what its original meaning was meant to be anyway. The forming of the United States is a perfect example of "church and state" working together quite well.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/6/2007 4:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, nope. First, his quote mentions nothing about the bible. Most of the founding fathers were deists, which is exactly what his quote was referring to. Our laws are not based on biblical principals- our laws are similar to some of the things 'taught' in the bible, but that does not mean the bible is what it was based on. The bible and religion in general do not have a monopoly on morality and just because they wrote it down does not mean that anything that resembles something in it owes itself to religion.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/7/2007 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh, nope. First, his quote mentions nothing about the bible.

The quote above is only about half of what he said, but I can assure you that he was speaking of the God of the Bible.
quote:
Most of the founding fathers were deists, which is exactly what his quote was referring to.

If you consider a Christian a deist, then ok. Most were Christians, that's not in debate.
quote:
Our laws are not based on biblical principals- our laws are similar to some of the things 'taught' in the bible, but that does not mean the bible is what it was based on.

This is not a true statement. Most of the founding fathers never hid their faith in the God of the Bible. It is very clear that they and the pilgrams before them were very solid Christians. It is no coincidence that our laws were constructed based on Biblical teaching. By the way, they are good laws.
quote:
The bible and religion in general do not have a monopoly on morality and just because they wrote it down does not mean that anything that resembles something in it owes itself to religion.

I'd like to see an example of text, written before the Bible, that contains the moral absolutes the US was founded on. And just to be clear, I hate 'religion' and true Christianity is not religion...it's a relationship.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/10/2007 12:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just go ahead and correct you here:

You say: "The quote above is only about half of what he said, but I can assure you that he was speaking of the God of the Bible."

Here it is in it's entirety-

"I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that he ought to be worshipped; that the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it."

As you can see, you are wrong as is the rest of your response (hard to take the bible as law when you don't think jesus is divine- but go ahead and explain that one). Not all of the founding fathers were deist or christian or whatever, but I would go so far as to say that most weren't 'true' christians.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/11/2007 9:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
He never states in his quote that Jesus is not divine, just that he has "some doubts"...probably based on "various corrupting changes" he is speaking of. Even though you may think the rest of the quote speaks against my point (which is why I deceided not to post it up), it actually supports it. How?...

The fact that he states this: "his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see" pretty much supports my point that Ben Franklin, among many other founding fathers, were heavily influenced by Biblical teaching. This, in turn, would heavily influence their decisions regarding the birth of the US.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/11/2007 12:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to be christian to see that some aspects of the bible are good. I agree with him too that of all the major world religions, what jesus originally taught is "the best the world ever saw", but the fact of the matter is that I'm not christian either. He clearly states the following:" his system of morals and his religion" speaking of jesus. It may just come down to we don't agree on 'what' he is saying, but just from that line alone I see him as referring to it as an outsider would. That and the fact that he dances around and never says "I am christian" (why wouldn't he if he was?). He is saying he has his own beliefs that overlap some with what jesus had to teach. Just because you hold similar ethical and moral views to christianity, does not mean you are one. Hell, muslims and christians are way more similar than a lot of people would think.

As far as jesus being divine, guess what? I don't know if jesus was divine or not- I have my doubts. I'm not going to say something as fact when I don't know it and I don't think Frnaklin would have either. Jesus didn't have to be divine for Franklin to think he taught some very good things (again, I feel the same way so you could say I'm living proof of the concept). Regardless, being a christian kinda requires for you to believe in jesus' divinity imo- you are free to feel that christianity and jesus are separate if you like.

As far as being influenced (I would not say heavily) by the bible, yes, of course he was. Just as he was influenced by the indian democracies that surrounded him which is argued heavily influenced our constitution. I'm sure he was also influenced by millions of other things around him. I fail to see the point of that argument. As I said, the bible does has some good stuff in it, some of which is common sense, but good stuff regardless. None of that means he was a christian nor that our constitution is 'christian' or even 'christian-like' or that christianity should take credit for it.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/11/2007 2:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He clearly states the following:" his system of morals and his religion" speaking of jesus.


Do you really believe that Ben Franklin would state that Jesus' teaching was the best, but then go on and live his life differently?

That's like saying: "Smoking is definitely bad for you, but I still do it." Wait, bad example...lol.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/11/2007 4:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Do you understand that you can believe someone has good things to teach but is not god or related as such in any way? He never said it was the best, he said it was the best of those offered at that point, and will probably remain the best choice offered in the foreseeable future, but that he is leaving his mind open to others that come up (religions are not made in a day typically): "the best the world ever saw, or is like to see ;." So to answer your question, yes, I do believe that Ben Franklin would say that of the major religions, he liked what jesus taught best, and that no, it does not make him a christian in any sense of the word. I don't view it him as living his life differently, I view it as him incorporating things in his life that he thinks was best. For example, he may incorporate many teachings of the bible into his life because he likes what they teach , not because they are in the bible.


By vortmax on 9/11/2007 4:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed my 2nd post further down from this one....it addresses some of the points in your response...thx.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/11/2007 10:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(hard to take the bible as law when you don't think jesus is divine- but go ahead and explain that one)

Actually, it's quite easy to explain accurately. The Bible is split into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the old Jewish law (particullary in the Tora - first five books) which include the ten commandments.

So even if he didn't believe the Jesus was divine (which I addressed in the post above), he could still easily take the Old Testament as law. Of course that would make him Jewish, but it's still the God of the Bible regardless...


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/11/2007 12:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
I get the distinct impression you are trying to make Ben Franklin into something he was not, something he never he was, something he didn't care for. The man was a free thinker with his own views on religion and his own personal faith. Please show me anything that he said that implies he took the bible as 'law'- anything, any part. All you are going to find is that he thought some of it was good and taught good things. You can believe that and not be a christian and not take it as law.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/11/2007 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The man was a free thinker with his own views on religion and his own personal faith.

So when does free thinking start? After you begin living your life according to the teachings of Jesus? After you pick and choose what you like or dislike about this religion or that one? Once you find something that fits you?

The truth is: There are moral absolutes. They exist and they were created by a Creator. Ben Franklin acknowledged this. His gives credit to the teachings of Jesus, but stops short of divinity (probably because he was burnt by the church of England or some judgmental Christians that didn't do what Jesus taught...love your neighbor as yourself). Regardless, he lived his life by those teachings...and so are you by living in the US (if that's where you're located).

So many people live their lives according to some set of morals that, coincidently, are very similar to what the Bible teaches. Then they say, "Well, it's got some good stuff in there, but I really don't believe any of it...". Of course they'll never admit they live their lives according to moral standards that originated in the Bible (that would mean they agree with it), only that they happened to be mentioned in there. Is that considered free thinking?

So my question is, if an individual lives their life according to a set of morals that are strikingly similar to those the the Bible teaches, why would they not investigate further? As it is, they're investing their lives in its morals...

quote:
Please show me anything that he said that implies he took the bible as 'law'- anything, any part.

The very fact that he claimed Jesus' teaching was the best the world ever saw and is like to see"...and living his life according to those teachings. People don't make statements like that and live their lives that way and not take it seriously or as 'law' (for lack of a better term).

Was Ben Franklin a Christian? Probably not, since he didn't fully believe and accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Did Ben Franklin believe in the God of the Bible? It appears so since he apparently lived his life according to the "best the world ever saw and is like to see" morals of the Bible and didn't mention any other religion.

quote:
You can believe that and not be a christian and not take it as law.

You certainly can, but you'll just be fooling yourself by not looking at the bigger picture: What makes right, right and wrong, wrong? Who created this moral absolute? Why did this Creator create these? Who is this Creator?


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/11/2007 6:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
Free thinking starts when you stop allowing others to make up your mind- this applies to not just religion but all aspects of life. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing different aspects of different religions, it has to do with finding things you believe in and no one can help you with that. If what you believe in happens to coincide with a certain religions, so be it, the difference is you got there yourself. It does not make you a member of that religion or any religion/sect/cult whatever. The bible is a nice collection of stories, some of which teach a good 'moral' lesson, some of which teach a horrible lesson. But, for the most part it is common knowledge, the stories/lessons existed before hand and the bible cannot claim that anything that resembles lessons learned in it are from it- that's a huge fallacy that seems to be perpetuated daily. Using your argument I could write a bunch of stories myself, make the lessons similar but change the scenes and claim that everyone is getting their idea's from me and should just stop playing around and join my religion already- don't think that would get very far, ya think?

And no, there are no moral absolutes. Name one-

He gives credit to the teachings of jesus because, get this, he actually had some good stuff to teach. So did my first grade teacher. She's not divine either (that I know of that is...). You are confused I think- he didn't live his life by those teachings, he sees that those teaching have a lot of merit and nothing more. Again you are attributing things to the bible that are not attributable.

So many people live their lives according to morals that are similar to what the bible teaches? You are right. Then again they are the same morals that are in the Koran, Buddhism, etc. What the bible teaches is not earth shattering, even for the time it was created and deserves no more credit for the morals it teaches other than to put them all in one place (even though they weren't in one place for many years until the convention that consolidated and eliminated parts- leave it to man to edit 'gods' work- meh).

quote:
So my question is, if an individual lives their life according to a set of morals that are strikingly similar to those the the Bible teaches, why would they not investigate further? As it is, they're investing their lives in its morals...


So, killing other people for the hell of it was okay before the bible? You act as if there was nothing before the bible. If you want to see something written before the bible that also has very similar 'teachings' look at any of the classic philosophers like Plato. He was forming similar views and writing them down long before jesus is said to have walked the earth.

quote:
The very fact that he claimed Jesus' teaching was the best the world ever saw and is like to see"...and living his life according to those teachings. People don't make statements like that and live their lives that way and not take it seriously or as 'law' (for lack of a better term).


Again you make the mistake of thinking he was living his life by those teachings. He wasn't. He was living his life as he felt best. Some parts of it will coincide with the bible I'm sure(as they do in my life), but acknowledging that they are similar and doing it because it's in the bible are two totally different things.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/12/2007 1:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, this is gonna be a long one...
quote:
And no, there are no moral absolutes.

Are you absolutely sure?

quote:
Free thinking starts when you stop allowing others to make up your mind

Any student of the Word learns the Bible is first and foremost about a King and His Kingdom, a book of history without equal in its accuracy and historicity. Faith comes into play regarding Jesus (is he indeed who he claimed to be?). With that said, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is not a blind, ignorant belief, but rather an intelligent faith. Our hearts and minds were created to work in harmony together; never has an individual been called upon in the Scriptures to commit intellectual suicide in trusting Jesus as Savior and Lord.

quote:
What the bible teaches is not earth shattering,

How about this for earth shattering? Isaiah 40:22 - “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:” The prophet that wrote these words lived back in the late eighth and early seventh centuries BC.

quote:
The bible is a nice collection of stories, some of which teach a good 'moral' lesson, some of which teach a horrible lesson ... and deserves no more credit for the morals it teaches other than to put them all in one place (even though they weren't in one place for many years until the convention that consolidated and eliminated parts- leave it to man to edit 'gods' work- meh).

The 66 books of the Bible were written by Kings, Prophets, Philosophers, Doctors and Scholars; some of the most intelligent and wise human beings on the face of the planet. Even the translation of the Bible into the English language was comprised of a team of academia’s best. 54 scholars were appointed in 1604, and a few overseers were also present, who went from group to group. In time through death the number of translators diminished to 47. They were given three locations to work: Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. And two groups worked at each location, making a total of six groups. The Bible was also divided up into six sections. Each group took one section, working on one book at a time.

First, each translator made his own translation of the book, which was reviewed by each other member of the group. Then the whole group reviewed the book. When they all agreed on the translation, they sent it to the other five groups for evaluation. Those groups then returned it to the original committee, marking anything they disagreed with. The original group would then go over the book again.
When all six committees finished with the book, it was sent, with any differences that were left, to a special committee made up of one leader from each of the six groups. They solved any remaining problems, and the book was sent to the printers.

As an aside, they did not work in secret. At any time, the translators could ask an outside scholar for his understanding, and anyone could find out about the progress. The churches were kept informed at all times.

In all, every single verse of the Bible was carefully examined and decided upon a total of fourteen times, by as many as 50 or more people! This made it impossible for any one translator to impose his personal viewpoint on a passage. He had to have logical reasons for a translation that were good enough to persuade every other scholar before it could be written into the text. There was no private interpretation here. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

God superintended the translation, so that what we need to know from the Bible has been accurately translated for us. We do have translated in English for the world, God's perfectly preserved words.

quote:
If you want to see something written before the bible that also has very similar 'teachings' look at any of the classic philosophers like Plato.

The books of the Bible and many of the morals it teaches were written well before Plato lived (427-347 BC). Jesus reiterated many of them.

quote:
So did my first grade teacher. She's not divine either (that I know of that is...)

Funny, some 1st grade teachers would have you think they are :)

quote:
Then again they are the same morals that are in the Koran, Buddhism, etc.

Hardly the same if you've studied them. However, some parts of Islam are similar to Christianity since it was 'borrowed' from it. Islam even goes as far as claiming that Jesus was a sinless prophet...besting the sinfulness of Muhammad, but that's another discussion...

quote:
but acknowledging that they are similar and doing it because it's in the bible are two totally different things.

Absolutely different. I live my life according to the teachings of the Bible because it's what honors God. You live your life according to some of the teachings of the Bible because...it's what's right? What best suites your current lifestyle? Why? I'd like to know how you determine what's right and what's wrong since you don't believe in moral absolutes.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/12/2007 12:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
How do I know what's right or wrong? The same I did when I was a kid and had no concept of god or religion.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/12/2007 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your 'right' and 'wrong' as a kid was based on what your parents/teachers taught you. So, how did they determine what was right and wrong? Keep going back further and further...


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/12/2007 2:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not really. It's called a conscience. Basically it means being able to see how others view us and acting accordingly. Some call it reciprocal altruism. You say go back further, yet you don't go back far enough. What you for some reason only think can be gotten from the bible/religion/god/whatever has been exhibited since the first humans started gathering together, far before anything in the bible.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/12/2007 5:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's called a conscience.

People's consciences aren't just pre-programmed to know what's right and wrong when they're born. In fact, with no moral absolutes, your conscience will never be able to judge what's right and what's wrong (since the very definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' don't even exist). Since your conscience is linked to what's in your heart, it is dictated by what morals you live your life by.

quote:
Basically it means being able to see how others view us and acting accordingly. Some call it reciprocal altruism.

Reciprocal altruism is really the scientific name for "tit for tat". "I'll help you first, but you better help me too or I won't help you anymore. Oh yeah, and if helping you costs more that what I'll get in return, I won't help you anymore either." Sounds more like conditional reciprocal altruism. That may follow human nature, but certainly contrary to Jesus' teachings from Matthew 5:44-45 "I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

quote:
What you for some reason only think can be gotten from the bible/religion/god/whatever has been exhibited since the first humans started gathering together, far before anything in the bible.

Your definition of 'first human beings' is different from mine (Adam/Eve vs. Caveman). Regardless, the 'first' human beings you're referring to lived by human nature..."tit for tat".


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/13/2007 11:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if you are arguing for adam and eve, then I guess this conversation is done. I take it the world is also only 10,000 years old or whatever the bible says? Hard to have a discussion with that kind of logic. Even some of the most hardcore believers I know acknowledge that what you appear to be taking literally are really metaphors, but to each his own. Just let me know if you'd like to pursue a logical discussion-


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By vortmax on 9/13/2007 12:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Now I thought we've been having one, but just one thing and it all gets thrown out the window? You know, there were many things that you stated that don't make much logical sense either, but I'm still willing to move forward. I guess it's your call.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elgoliath on 9/13/2007 12:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's one major thing- how can we discuss when human morality starts if we have fundamental differences of opinion as to when and humans started? If you were right and adam and eve were the first, then the rest of your arguments would probably be correct as well. If science and I are correct, then humans have been displaying morality long before any current religion can take credit for. I fail to see how we can continue this if we can't agree on when humans started since that is a major crux of both arguments.


By vortmax on 9/13/2007 1:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand how it appears to be major, but I think we've already determined that I believe in God and you do not. Now if that's not even more major, then I don't know what is (and using that logic we should probably have never become engaged in a conversation in the first place, but that's ridiculous...).

Regardless, I'm still trying to understand how you are able to determine what's right and what's wrong. I've stated that conscience doesn't cut it; neither does reciprocal altruism. I can't see or understand, from an evolutionist's perspective, how a society could possibly grow, thrive, sustain, etc. without moral absolutes. I mean, why have laws then? What are they based on? Is raping someone right in certain situations? Is premeditated murder a good thing? It just doesn't make any logical sense.


By vortmax on 9/13/2007 2:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
In addition to my post above...

quote:
...how can we discuss when human morality starts... AND ...If science and I are correct, then humans have been displaying morality...


Without moral absolutes, how can you even define morality? According to evolution (I didn't use the word 'science' since it's not a belief system), it can't logically be called 'morality' since there is no definition of 'right' and 'wrong' (and the very purpose of a 'moral' is to teach a lession based on the definition of what's right and wrong).


By Griswold on 9/5/2007 3:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
If that thing lands on your relatives computers, you should be worried about something else than just the headache it gives you to remove it (considering you'll ever find out). They dont plan on dropping on Joe and Jane Average's computer, you know.

However, giving up a little privacy here and there often results in waking up in a nightmare, sooner or later.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By chameleons on 9/5/2007 5:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin. It seems that you have totally forgotten the wisdom of your founding fathers.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By elegault on 9/5/2007 6:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It seems that you have totally forgotten the wisdom of your founding fathers.
quote:


Including the current "Administration"


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 7:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
Although our society was built by our founding fathers wisdoms.....lets not forget that was 200 years ago.

Times change, people change, and the worlds society changes.

The methods of terrorism and takeover have greatly been altered since 200 years ago, and so must the methods of prevention in order to preserve our nation.

You people act like they are doing it to every computer out there, that they are tapping every one of your cell phones & land lines, and that your every action is being monitored. But i ask you this, has your life changed by this in which you are no longer doing what you would have done? Doubtful. Therefore, this really is not affecting you, and is not targeted at you.

These are methods used at targeting people who the governments have reason to believe they need to monitor, and rightfully so.

So dont blow this out of proportion by making everyone here believe that this is malware installed on everyone of our PC's to monitor the entire US public (or UK public, or elsewhere), because you all should know better.

The main backbone of terrorism is communication, and monitoring/cutting off their forms of communication help stunt and prevent the growth of terrorism and crime.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By cbo on 9/5/2007 9:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
So core beliefs and principals which has been our bedrock for centuries must change also. The administration always maintained that we need to stay the course on one issue or the next. But when it comes to the basic principals that govern our way of life our national identity we should change course? It is too much power to be given up so readily. "The hate us for our freedoms" is what i was told, so we if we give them up they will hate us less?


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 9:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
The core beliefs and principals are still in tact. But they way we go about utilizing them and running our nation has to change with the times. We cannot run a nation in 2007 likes its 1776. It just doesnt work that way.

No one is giving up power. No one is snooping on you while you surf porn on the internet, or send your girlfriend naked webcam videos of yourself. They are monitoring people who have brought a legitimate concern - the same way they would tap phones, perform a stakeout, look into your history records.

They are using this to monitor the people who "hate us for our freedoms", not monitoring the people who have those freedoms. Remember, most terrorists - as well as visitors, illegal immigrants, people with work visas, (etc) in the US have no place even being here, are not citizens, and have no rights in our country. So monitoring them, their activities, and what they do is not against our consitution.


By cbo on 9/5/2007 10:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
The phone taps in past were on American citizen especially as of late. There is still a procedure we must follow. 1776 and 2007 we still have three branches of government and a constitution that is amendable, if we need drastic changes follow the rules. As just like most en devours it pays to have a guideline that has leeway for change like our government and the constitution. Going a wily nilly at making up rules as you go will not be successful.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By gramboh on 9/5/2007 7:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
It STILL has to be done in a legal way with checks and balances. Many people have pointed out potential nightmare situations above when the government is allowed what are basically unrestricted search powers with no independent judicial oversight.

I remember you (mdogs444) from another debate on this topic, in that one it appeared your beliefs (trade liberty for security) were based on the fact that you had family members directly involved in 9/11 (tragedy). Wouldn't you still want to fight for freedom?


By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 9:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree with what you say.

However, I believe what they are doing is protecting out liberties from those who are trying to destroy them. I do agree that checks and balances are good - but at the same time, some of those checks and balances take drastic time and vital information could be missed in that span of time.

So i guess it does go both ways.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By CSMR on 9/5/2007 7:36:20 AM , Rating: 2
A society that does not care absolutely about liberty deserves slavery and death? That does not sound very wise to me.


By rdeegvainl on 9/5/2007 8:03:38 AM , Rating: 1
Way to think in absolutes.


By seamonkey79 on 9/5/2007 9:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A society that does not care absolutely about liberty deserves slavery and death? That does not sound very wise to me.


A society that allows its governing body to spy on them to allow them to feel 'secure' is not secure. It's not about deserving slavery or death, it's about a loss of liberty and security, through giving your liberties to a government that needs not go through lawful 'channels' in order to punish those it decides it can. There was a country, not more than 70 years ago, that decided that they wanted security more than they wanted freedom. Soon, Jews, gays, blacks, and anyone else that this country's government decided was a 'threat to security of the Fatherland' were thrown into camps.

You people out there talking like you know what the heck you're talking about might actually want to research some older civilizations that ran around arresting whomever they pleased with no recompense to the law. Like, Rome, Persia, Greece, Maya, Aztec, Spanish Inquisition (that spread over much of Europe, but nobody expects that), and finally, Germany, Spain and Italy of the 30's and 40's.

Please, oh PLEASE do this before it's too late.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By iFX on 9/5/2007 7:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
You don't like a conservative to me - or even a middle of the road kind of guy. You sound like a pinko commie to me who wants more and more government.

Back on topic: Chances are most governments are already doing this - the Germans were just dumb enough to TELL everyone they are doing it.

The solution? Lock down your PC and/or network.


By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2007 12:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. Programs like Tor (an onion router system) and Zone Alarms are becoming not only useful but a near necessity if one wants to use the internet these days. I don't want people stealing my identity, but I also don't want the government deciding to ax me because I disagree with them. A totalitarian state doesn't need a reason to decide who is for them or against them. Have we learned nothing from history? They may target one group now, but who is to say they won't start using it on more "dissidents" in the future?


By ShapeGSX on 9/5/2007 9:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I consider myself a conservative American and am usually in support of sacrificing a little privacy in exchange for security.


Funny, you don't sound like a conservative at all. Republicans aren't conservative these days.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By Misty Dingos on 9/5/2007 9:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't think the German government or the US government would put this surveillance ware or Surlware on anyone’s pc without a valid court order. To do other than that would expose the software to far too many smart individuals that would find and disable it. These smart people would then publish this information and that would either render the Surlware obsolete and ineffective or government agents would sneak into their bedrooms and night and put headphones on them in their sleep and program them to become government agents! So since government agents are well paid they will just put this Surlware on pcs of people they suspect are up to nefarious doings.

I don't think that anyone’s freedoms are in any danger here. Well unless you are a terrorist.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By Spivonious on 9/5/2007 10:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
You sure have a lot of trust in the government.


By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 10:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well being that they are the people who are the face of this country to the rest of the world, and who are in charge of protecting this great nation and its freedoms, you should have enough respect to show them some trust as well


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 10:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well being that they are the people who are the face of this country to the rest of the world, and who are in charge of protecting this great nation and its freedoms, you should have enough respect to show them some trust as well


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By cbo on 9/5/2007 10:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
"Trust but verify"


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 10:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
Not saying you have to believe in every political figure out there.....but our government is what defines our country. Showing some respect for the nation & its leaders is not asking too much.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By cbo on 9/5/2007 10:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
You can still respect the leaders and the authority granted to them, but still ask for some accountability. I think the respect your giving them, is that of a king or queen or some other figure who derives his/hers right to govern as a birth right from god. Not as an elected official.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By cbo on 9/5/2007 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
Look at the duke rape case. You had an elected official abuse his powers as the DA. Should we have just trusted what he said blindly?


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By cbo on 9/5/2007 11:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
And our government dose not define our country. Citizens do.


By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 11:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
We, the people, vote to define our country. But the leaders of our government are the "faces" of our nation is what i was saying.


By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 11:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
And the court found the defendants not-guilty right? The point is there are more people than just one who has to get something approved.

President Bush by himself isn't making every decision for this entire country. It still has to go through the rest of the processes wtih congress, etc.


By Misty Dingos on 9/5/2007 11:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
Just a correction here for you. The DA in the Duke rape case was not elected. He was appointed by the Governor after the previous DA was given a job as a judge. But your point is still taken. Trusting political functionaries is a big leap for me.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 11:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
No you are definately wrong lol.

But it was the american people who VOTED to put our political leaders in office - and just as we expect them to be truthful & take responsibility - I think its also our duty to respect our leaders and hold them accountable.

Not referring this to you at all, but those on here who personally bash our leaders - whether its because of a certain issue or because of their political party - is a discrace in my book. They cant please everyone, but yet some expect them to.


By vortmax on 9/6/2007 3:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree about the bashing issue. Double standards are a norm now-a-days...


By Misty Dingos on 9/5/2007 11:41:14 AM , Rating: 2
No I don't have a lot of trust in the government. I have some faith in the legal system. It is hard for me to believe that every judge that issues warrants to use this type of surveillance is a corrupt crook with evil on his mind.


By Misty Dingos on 9/5/2007 9:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't think the German government or the US government would put this surveillance ware or Surlware on anyone’s pc without a valid court order. To do other than that would expose the software to far too many smart individuals that would find and disable it. These smart people would then publish this information and that would either render the Surlware obsolete and ineffective or government agents would sneak into their bedrooms and night and put headphones on them in their sleep and program them to become government agents! So since government agents are well paid they will just put this Surlware on pcs of people they suspect are up to nefarious doings.

I don't think that anyone’s freedoms are in any danger here. Well unless you are a terrorist.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By theslug on 9/5/2007 11:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Congratulations, you are officially a traitor to the country and the constitution.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 11:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
No hes not. He has different views than you do on a particular subject. Makes him no worse, no better than you.

Dont be so quick to judge people based on a single view of particular issued.


RE: A little too far, don't you think...
By theslug on 9/5/2007 12:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
It is simply my opinion that you do not give up liberties or privacy just to be a little safer. Are there not ways to combat terrorism without doing so?


By mdogs444 on 9/5/2007 1:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are there not ways to combat terrorism without doing so?


Well considering the backbone of terrorism and crime are handled by methods of communication - id like to hear your ways to combat them from the ground up without doing so.

Ive said it on here already, but I'll say it again. None of us are giving up our civil liberties from the actions stated in this article. This particular method of interception communications & investigating information is intended for the use to battle terrorism and crime. They are not investigating everyone in the public, only those who they have legitimate reason to believe are committing or conspiring to commit terrorism to crimes. You honestly want to risk not being able to stop a terrorist attack or major drug shipment or bomb plot or asassination attempt because you dont want the government to be able to monitor those peoples methods of communication?


By Misty Dingos on 9/6/2007 7:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
Please explain to me what freedom is lost or what privacy is lost by the use of this technology? Did you lose any privacy or freedom when they started tapping phones or reading mail? The use of this technology is the same as if someone tapped a phone line running to a suspects house and would be under the same restrictions. To quote the Bard.
quote:
We have free souls, this touches us not.
OK missquote.


By Alamar on 9/5/2007 12:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
How in the world could a "conserative American" willingly exchange privacy / freedom for security? I see that concept as being opposite of what being conserative is all about.


By nekobawt on 9/5/2007 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although, if I had to choose, I'd rather have the government snooping my keystrokes than some guy trying to steal my identity.


What if it's a government employee taking advantage of the snooped keystrokes to steal your identity? :P


1984
By Gul Westfale on 9/5/2007 12:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
this is quite stupid, and for several reasons:

1. it is impossible for the government to prove that whatever data they say is on a suspects' computer was actually put there by the suspect, and not a corrupt police officer. so how would that hold up in court?

2. many people will now simply disregard any emails sent by the german government, regardless of their content; out of fear of being spied on, or out of principle. thus it makes it harder for the governnment to communicate wit the people.

3. mister schaeuble's fantasy of living in a totalitarian police state is now one step closer to reality. soon they'll be wearing brown shirts again... i'm german myself, but boy am i glad i live in canada. stephen W. harper is by no means perfect, but he beats A. schaeuble hands down.




RE: 1984
By Gul Westfale on 9/5/2007 12:32:09 AM , Rating: 3
ah, i forgot a fourth point: germany will now be the laughing stock of all democracies worldwide... and of some dictatorships as well.


RE: 1984
By codeThug on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: 1984
By Griswold on 9/5/2007 3:33:30 AM , Rating: 4
If you give up your freedom as easily as this, you already lost the war.


RE: 1984
By codeThug on 9/5/2007 11:26:25 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't give up anything. I'm just not stupid enough or naive enough to think that our Government is hamstrung by the ACLU and dopes like you.

Maybe you'd prefer a dirty bomb going off in your back yard.

And if one did, who would you blame? Yup, you'd blame the Government.


RE: 1984
By rdeegvainl on 9/5/2007 3:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Said he was from Canada, I fail to see how the US use affected him.


RE: 1984
By elegault on 9/5/2007 6:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
1) US abandoning our troops in Afghanistan for Iraq.
2) Soft-wood lumber dispute. "It's free-trade stupid"
3) Passport's required for entering US.
4) Devil's Lake Dispute.

If I had more time I'd dig up some more. The current administration has given many reasons.


RE: 1984
By rdeegvainl on 9/5/2007 7:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
So those are reasons why the US using malware on it's citizens affected a person in Canada? you lost me.
I understand that those are times that Us and Canada affect each other, but I was asking about in the case of spying on citizens.


Spy Sweeper = ftw
By Munkles on 9/5/2007 12:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how long it will be before a company like Webroot, or eset, or Trend Micro decide to weed it out and remove it.

Like sony's rootkit, I cannot imagine this would possibly last for very long on any "techy" persons pc.




RE: Spy Sweeper = ftw
By Griswold on 9/5/2007 3:32:38 AM , Rating: 2
I would say you mistunderstood the concept. They wont drop this tool on everybody's computer like its candy - under such conditions, it will be unlikely that any of the firms you named will get ahold of a sample before the next generation of the software is on duty. Its kind of the same concept that allows anti-malware companies to exist: the bad guys are always a couple steps ahead of them. And so will the feds always be one or several steps ahead of the pack, especially because this is supposed to happen on a very small scale, with only a few dozen or hundred computers infected.

You know, terrorist suspects usually dont turn to the public and say "hey, they invaded my computer because they think i'm a terrorist - can you help me?".


RE: Spy Sweeper = ftw
By Proteusza on 9/5/2007 4:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
If you are a criminal and you are worried, dont use email or windows, or both, and you will be fine.

The DRM present in BioShock can circumvent Vista 64's requirement that drivers must be signed, so that makes it rather worthless.


RE: Spy Sweeper = ftw
By BikeDude on 9/5/2007 8:29:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The DRM present in BioShock can circumvent Vista 64's requirement that drivers must be signed, so that makes it rather worthless.


References?

I realise many games require admin-rights to install and that most of them uses drivers, but... Are you sure BioShock's DRM driver isn't signed? (the simple way of circumventing the requirement..: Just buy the certificate!)


RE: Spy Sweeper = ftw
By Proteusza on 9/5/2007 9:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Spy Sweeper = ftw
By killerroach on 9/5/2007 9:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
Except SecuROM doesn't use a driver... some implementations of it don't even use a service. SecuROM runs in user space, unlike other copy protections like SafeDisc or StarForce, neither of which can be installed in Vista x64 due to the fact that they do use drivers in their protection.


RE: Spy Sweeper = ftw
By Proteusza on 9/5/2007 9:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
Read the forum post I posted above, it explains how BioShocks DRM works.


RE: Spy Sweeper = ftw
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/5/2007 10:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
I had no difficulty removing Securom. It was relatively simple.


fair access...
By codeThug on 9/5/2007 12:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
Will the proposed Geheime StaatspolizeiWare be covered under the GNU/GPL?




Good thing
By FITCamaro on 9/5/2007 7:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
That the terrorists don't know about it then.




VOTING SYSTEM
By JonnyDough on 9/5/2007 2:43:50 PM , Rating: 1
What we need is a SECURE voting system that would allow registered citizens to vote on specific matters and do away with representatives. Representatives are OLD school. We have technology today. Instead of paying reps we could pay to have secure servers and so forth.

~All our decisions are belong to us.~




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki