NSA Reportedly Victorious in Penetrating Google and Yahoo! Cloud with Smiley Face

Discussion in 'Windows Security' started by Mike, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. Mike

    Mike Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,488
    Likes Received:
    783
    In another bizarre turn of events regarding the leak of how Internet data is being collected and stored in aggregate form, presumably forever, a new slide released shows how Google's cloud security has been completely infiltrated by the US National Security Agency (NSA). The US has already gotten itself in big trouble with Germany's Merkel and other allied heads of state, after it was revealed her cellphone had been tapped since 2002.

    While most assumed US cloud servers were not safe from penetration, it looks like the latest information now sheds light on the subject, and it should be assumed that nearly all communications are monitored. Since the NSA revelations from Edward Snowden took place, the loss for cloud-based services in the US have been estimated to be in the billions.

    On Capitol Hill, the Congress has been in attack mode, over the last several days, against the director of national intelligence, and other high ranking officials, who have indicated that the Obama White House likely knew about the surveillance since at least 2008.

    Earlier in the year, in yet another bizarre turn of events, George W. Bush reared his head and declared, emphatically, that he had authorized the draconian monitoring programs now under tough scrutiny. However, the author of the US Patriot Act has stated publically, that this level of surveillance was never the goal of the legislation, which quickly came about after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.





    [​IMG]

    Find out more information on these security developments here.
     
  2. seekermeister

    seekermeister Honorable Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    85
    Although I didn't object too much about the Patriot Act at the time it was enacted, for I thought it to be a temporary necessity, I knew that it would remain long after the time of it's need, and the ones hollering loudest about it (Democrats), would abuse it's power once they regained control. I can still see some very limited uses for it now, but the need of those uses is overshadowed by it abuses. No one is ever going to stop the government from utilizing all power at it's disposal, for a variety of purposes (not all legitimate), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Privacy goes hand in hand with freedom, and freedom is what this country was intended to be about. I think that it was Franklin, that said that they had given us a republic, but it was up to us to keep it. If the American people don't use the power that our Constitution endowed us with, we will be doomed to a fate that none of us want.
     
  3. Pauli

    Pauli Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    211
    Not being able to aptly comment US circumstances, limited to common knowledge of human behavior, some of the great idea of use of power can be found in http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html

    To repeat something I've already given in this Forum: Civil Action 92-0449. It tells something of the most sinister part of it all.

    On the other hand, I must admit I have practiced something of the kind. The Army / Military Forces are known for their ability of silence: Nothing has happened. If anything should happen, we would have total control. --- That would be a 100% bingo. And I have done it, I admit. Sometimes preservation of liberty requires secrecy. But that is in times of a true crisis, and I will never accept general control of citizens.
     
  4. seekermeister

    seekermeister Honorable Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    85
    I had never heard of Civil Action 92-0449 before, so I Googled it. I only read about half of the article:

    http://www.justiceforallcitizens.com/electromagneticvictim.html

    because that is about as much as I could stomach. I would never argue that there are those who wouldn't use such means...were it possible, but no one could ever convince me that this has been happening. The article says that there was only one media representative that attended the meeting mentioned, and I would imagine that the reason for that is that most other representatives didn't buy it either. It sounds more like a lot of troubled people seeking to find a common cause and someone to point a finger at.

    Yes, it is a known fact that EMF does have negative effects on people, but there is no way that a particular person could be singled out on a continuous basis, and even if it were possible, the effects would not be as those described. If EMF were being broadcast over large scale area, there would be no way for those "responsible" to protect themselves from the radiation, unless they went around wearing tin foil hats all day. :)
     
  5. Pauli

    Pauli Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    211
    The thing is, I don't want to alarm people. But we do have, all of us, an electromagnetic print, just like we have a physical fingerprint. Our brains work in electrical ways, and they are individual. Your waves could not be mixed with mine, like your fingerprints couldn't be.

    The possibility to affect ones thoughts or visions is another thing. But knowing something about IT, it goes both ways, why not send as well as receive? Goes paranoid or far fetched, but if I get your wavelength... why not?
     
  6. seekermeister

    seekermeister Honorable Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    85
    While I don't discount the concept of individuality, and that it may extend to a degree to the psychic aspect of people, I do not believe that any person is so unique as to have their own private "wavelength". Obviously you do, but can you document that in some credible fashion, beyond making assertions?
     
  7. seekermeister

    seekermeister Honorable Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    85
    I found some "documentation" for you:

     
  8. Pauli

    Pauli Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    211
    It's already there. Given. I'm more of a question maker, I guess you're the master in seek? Dear fellow, find out!
     
  9. seekermeister

    seekermeister Honorable Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    85
    What is already there...proof supporting your statements? I think not. If it is merely a question, then you should work on the fashion in which you frame your questions, because I don't read them that way. Don't let my username mislead you, while I definitely seek a greater understanding of truth, I do not willingly go off on wild goose chases, simply at anyone's mere suggestion.

    When I do discuss subjects that seem somewhat arcane to me, I strongly filter what is said to extract any bits of truth that I find in them, then discard the rest. One thing that I do know is that truth is usually mingled in with lies to make them more credible, and properly treated, lies can be a valuable source of information on how to piece together the jigsaw of life.
     
  10. Pauli

    Pauli Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    211

Share This Page

Loading...