begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Wednesday 15 November 2006 18:46 \__
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:39:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, the Chinese, German and French government can confirm that
>>> there are deliberate back doors (with undocumented protocols for access,
>>> surely).
>>
>> Do you have any links ..
>
>
> http://www.heise.de/ct/english/98/08/042/
>
> http://digg.com/linux_unix/Windows_Might_Become_a_US_Government_Thingy#c2683628
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~budallen/backdoor.html
>
> http://www.darknet.org.uk/2006/02/uk-wants-backdoor-in-next-version-of-microsoft-windows/
>
> ...Among many more. A large number of these talks about espionage and back
> doors to filesystems (and master keys to encryption) are taking place behind
> closed doors, for obvious reasons. A more concrete proof and admission would
> be hard to gather because it would encourage the 'criminals' (we are all
> assumed to be pirates and criminals from the get-go, remember?) to take
> measures which stifle spying.
>
> I don't think we should be surprised at all. The government does not deny
> wiretapping, spying on phone conversations, E-mail, non-encrypted HTTP...
> all to prevent terrorism and such. Last week the UK government arrested a
> woman for having a particular file on her hard-drive. Even my own activity
> on the Web has been monitored for quite some time (I was told so).
>
It's called "legal intercept", and is a requirement for all network
operators to provide access to governments in all countries. To imagine
that governments are not monitoring your every move, if they want to,
would be to misunderstand the underlying message of 1984 completely.
Of course, having a nice, nebulous, enemy is another step in that
direction.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Save gas, don't eat beans.
|
|
