It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Look man, I already showed you how ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with controlling the Internet, I work in the sector, you aren't going to tell me how it works. They handle DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS. Do you know what that is? It's how they relate the NAME (www.example.com) to the IP address that is assigned to you through the ISP (private company) that provides you an IP, nothing else whatsoever. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree here... I leveled your argument, and you keep hopping around using strawman arguments to skip over the fact that you are wrong. "Rebooting" the Internet has absolutely NOTHING to do with the trillions of bytes stored on INDIVIDUAL servers across every private company in the world. The GOVERNMENT does not OWN the servers! They sit in private locations, inside buildings, in some cases, with no access to the outside world. You're reading WAY too much into the word "reboot". It's a backup up plan, in case everything were to fail. You are talking nonsense and using terms that make no sense. I'm not going to keep arguing your vacuous points with no sources to back them up. The sources you have provided actually contradict your claims, and I've shown that.
But some are calling for the treaty to be given more than a quick modernisation. Some nations are calling for control of the internet's technical specifications to be taken away from a select group of non-profit US companies, and handed over to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
But Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT, doesn't agree. "The United States believes that the existing multi-stakeholder institutions, incorporating industry and civil society, have functioned effectively and will continue to ensure the health and growth of the internet and all of its benefits," he said.
According to the site, Russia is one nation that is pushing for control of, at least some of, the internet to be handed over the UN.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by AQuestion
well, interestingly, there has been a push from the International Community for the US to turn over control of the Internet to the ITU. But as of last year it didn't happen from what I understand(not giving POTUS any credit for not doing it, seeing as how he signed on to NSA spying).
But some are calling for the treaty to be given more than a quick modernisation. Some nations are calling for control of the internet's technical specifications to be taken away from a select group of non-profit US companies, and handed over to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
But Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT, doesn't agree. "The United States believes that the existing multi-stakeholder institutions, incorporating industry and civil society, have functioned effectively and will continue to ensure the health and growth of the internet and all of its benefits," he said.
www.wired.co.uk...
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
The governmnet is light years ahead of what the public knows and uses. The military gave us the internet and it is wise to assume they retain either a)ownership b)control or c)both. I personally do NOT trust the government or corporations for my privacy.
How did libya and egypt shut down the internet during arab spring a few years ago? I bet all the root domains like .ca(canada) .uk(united kingdom) .fr(france) are government owned.
Darpa is as scary as it gets man. I wouldn't mess with them, and I mean EVER! 512bit encryption is probably a minor inconvience at most for them when they can do individual inspection of single bits. Not to mention possible backdoor access to windows operating systems left intentionally open for "special occassions". I lost at least one computer that got bricked a day after everything was working normal. The computer technician spoke of a bios virus that corrupted everything.edit on 16/6/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)
Right now, a dedicated amateur using the published code (e.g. Msieve) may achieve a 512-bit factorization if he has access to powerful computers (several dozens big PC, and at least one clock full of fast RAM) and a few months of free time; basically, "dedicated amateur" means "bored computer science student in a wealthy university". Anything beyond 512 bits is out of reach of an amateur.
Summary: in your code, you can return "practically infinite" as cracking time for all key lengths. A typical user will not break a 1024-bit RSA key, not now and not in ten years either. There are about a dozen people on Earth who can, with any credibility, claim that it is conceivable, with a low but non-zero probability, that they might be able to factor a single 1024-bit integer at some unspecified time before year 2020.
The military does not OWN the Internet! You all are failing to grasp the concept of what the Internet actually is! It is a NETWORK of tens of THOUSANDS of computers and routers, most of which are owned by the private sector, NOT the government. Yes, the Government has a kill switch, we already knew this, it is nothing new. This is not the subject that is up for debate here, the LEGALITY of it is the issue.
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by AQuestion
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read the post, because you are really starting to piss me off with your absolute ignorance.
Bottom line, they can not read encrypted traffic, which is why they get warrants, otherwise, why bother with the warrants. The servers are not all controlled by the Government, and the companies never once agreed to it, please show your proof of that, because the ONLY time they allow access to the servers is with a warrant.
To deal with it, use 2048-bit encryption keys for the things you don't want decrypted.
~Namasteedit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
So who owns the root servers then? Who owns .us, .ca, .fr, .it, .mx, .uk, .ir, etc
How did egypt or was it libya shut down internet access throughout the nation
We are not talking about low level domains, we are talking about top level domains. Top level domains belong to the government and its operations can be outsourced to private parties.
Registering a low level domain is one thing, but the actual central hub is quite another thing.edit on 16/6/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by elouina
For the first time in my life, I am absolutely speechless! We were told it was going to get much worse, and look at this! Just look!
On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA (S. 1927 ) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110–55 , S. 1927 ) was then signed into law by George W. Bush on 2007-08-05.[37] --snip---- A summary of key provisions follows. The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met: There are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; The acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications); The acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications; A significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and Minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.
Originally posted by AQuestion
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by AQuestion
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read the post, because you are really starting to piss me off with your absolute ignorance.
Bottom line, they can not read encrypted traffic, which is why they get warrants, otherwise, why bother with the warrants. The servers are not all controlled by the Government, and the companies never once agreed to it, please show your proof of that, because the ONLY time they allow access to the servers is with a warrant.
To deal with it, use 2048-bit encryption keys for the things you don't want decrypted.
~Namasteedit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)edit on 16-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne,
Be truthful, they don't need warrants. Haven't you read the news or what Google, Microsoft and Facebook have said? Read the court cases, they don't need warrants. Get it and be as pissed off as you wish, only you have control over that. Encryption has nothing to do with getting a warrant. You may understand computer systems; but, you do not understand the law. One of my American Jurisprudence Awards is in Constitutional law what is yours in? I may not like what is going on and I may not think it should be legal; but, the courts and precedent say it is.
You have to be one of the thickest people I've seen on here. I don't care what you know about law, you know nothing about technology, that much is apparent. The government can not decrypt strong encryption, so they issue a warrant to get the company that houses the encrypted data to decrypt it for them. I have seen the warrants myself, I have even helped to provide the data for audits when necessary, and like I said before, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree. They MUST have a warrant to ask for decrypted data because they can't force a private company to violate the privacy of its customers by providing their data, and if you had any basis in law, you would not be arguing this. It's almost as if you aren't reading anything I've said. The legal teams that I have worked with in every case, always push back as much as possible on the Federal agencies because of how complex the infringement on privacy is, but nobody will spend the money to take the Feds on in a Federal lawsuit when they have almost unlimited funds.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Thanks for explaining it. You probably know much more about computer networking than me. I think under the national security pretense companies that control and operate the central hubs could have the means to decrypt data extremely fast with supercomputers, so it would not be a matter of 20 years but a much shorter span.
Anyway the NSA has its own supercomputers that encrpyt and decrypt messages 24/7. Project Echelon is not fiction. Supposedly they specialise in foreign surveillance but after the patriot act and ndaa anything is possible, if not likely.
I am not sure exactly what we disagree on, because apparently we agree on almost everything.