Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, July 29, 2013

Web Firms Ordered To Turn Over User Account Passwords


From CNET:
The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed. 
If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.... 
Read the rest HERE. The article provides important details, including the following:
Whether the National Security Agency or FBI has the legal authority to demand that an Internet company divulge a hashed password, salt, and algorithm remains murky.

"This is one of those unanswered legal questions...

[...]

The Justice Department has argued in court proceedings before that it has broad legal authority to obtain passwords. In 2011, for instance, federal prosecutors sent a grand jury subpoena demanding the password that would unlock files encrypted with the TrueCrypt utility.
One has to wonder if such access to passwords for certain accounts would facilitate theft from bank accounts and fraudulent charges to credit cards.

In any case, we have seen on multiple occasions the disregard that the Obama administration has for the rule of law — including that of our founding documents.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states as follows:
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.
This lawless administration, ever pursuing the acquisition of greater power, disregards the significance of the following:
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
Meanwhile, Asylum Watch tells us the following: "134 House Republicans Vote Against Our Unalienable Rights."

30 comments:

  1. Commenters will note that I've changed the formatting of the commenting form.

    Do you like this change or not?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your comment thingy be perfecto.

    I sure would like to see the judges signature on this one ... oh, there isn't one. Surprise, surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Our faux president continues his march.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This country stopped being a nation of laws a very long time ago ... when Lincoln decided to suspend the constitution, he set a precedent that was followed by Wilson and Roosevelt, Johnson and Nixon, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and the people whose liberties are most affected stood around looking in adoration at their presidential personalities and said nothing.

    Imagine that.

    This comment form is superior to the pop-out, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mustang,
      I've been meaning to make this change for quite a while. But things got too hectic this summer to me to do much of anything on the web. **sigh**

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why demand the password? Just demand the data. Seems they've been able to collect this information already. That's why Snowden is on the run. There's no need to actually use the person's login to get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please DO NOT SPLIT INFINITIVES. For once your sentiments are correct, but you should have said: "There's no need to use the person's login."

      Aside from the avoidance of split infinitives in most instances, one should avoid using words like actually, really and definitely as well. They do nothing to enhance the meaning of most statements.

      Simply making yourself understood is not enough if have any desire to be a good, effective writer.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      Please DO NOT SPLIT INFINITIVES.

      Totally with you on that!

      Of course, it remains to be seen if Liberalmann knows what an infinitive is.

      Delete
    3. If we're still on split infinitives -- of which, I'm the world's worst -- let's get upset about the complete lack of punction in a sentence, which is so popular now. There are times I have to read a sentence, and/or paragraph, several times to decipher what the writer is trying to convey... actually.

      Delete
  7. Hmm, I like the new box.

    For this, all I can think of is Benjamin Franklin's saying, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    Only those easily frightened, or unwilling to take care of themselves, would sacrifice liberty for safety. Or the ignorant, which most of America now is...
    Risk exists, that is a fact we need to all accept. We all die someday, and paranoia wouldn't change or help that fact. Learning to accept that is a necessary step to becoming an adult... for if you live guided by fear, you won't live long, or well. And really, it is childish to look up to the government like a parent, ready to heal all ills and protect us from all harm. When- or if- we grow up, we learn to fend for ourselves, to be responsible for ourselves, and really, to rely on ourselves. Yesyes, we all need help at times. But usually, the government is the suppose to help us!(exception: military conflicts.)

    A tad off-topic, but something that's been bouncing around my head.
    Orwell never did say in 1984 HOW Oceana because the way it was. What forced the world into that totalitarian state? All we see is what happens once it's there.
    Strikes me as we are seeing, in the real world, the answer to that. The population becomes stupid and dependent on the government, only caring about trivial stuff and entertainment, true proles. People blindly pigeon-step to a god-like leader, who can do no ill, with Party members blissfully doing evil because BB said so. The surveillance is easy to match, but the people being so fearful as to willingly accept it is now seen. Constant war, check. All that's left, really, is a full-on takeover. And to be frank, that isn't far off.
    And what, in the end, has caused it? Virtue begets prosperity, and the daughter kills the mother. Replace virtue with responsibility, faith, hard work, self-sufficiency, and a host of other virtues, and you get what happened. We're lazy, scared, weak- but weak only because of lack of doing anything. We are no stupider than people 50 years ago! But we don't DO ANYTHING. So we think we are weak. Well, ya. If you sit on your bum all day for a year, you get to be pretty weak, pretty helpless. But it isn't irreversible...

    But if the attitude is to let everyone else solve things, they deal with it, they protect us, then it becomes irreversible. Because by then, you are chained. Chained and too weak to break them, or even to care. An attitude adjustment is so sorely needed it isn't funny. But learning to take responsibility, to not rely on some other human to solve your problems, that life won't be a bed of roses and you shouldn't expect one- that takes either good sense taught young, or hard knocks. The older, the harder.

    We'll learn, like hell we'll learn. Either we get to 1984, and by then all those who can recognize where we are are either dead, or had gotten the hell out of Dodge. Or, more likely given the state of the ME and Asia, we get a hard knock.

    At this point, I doubt enough people will wake up in time. Maybe. If we are lucky. Maybe the gov. will make a mistake so massive, put on too much heat, and people will wake up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wildstar!

      You're back! **smile**

      We have some catching up to do.

      Email me when you get a chance -- or give a phone call (evening). I want to tell you about a book that I've been reading -- and some other things. I think that you'll be interested.

      Maybe the gov. will make a mistake so massive, put on too much heat, and people will wake up.

      Maybe, but that's a big maybe, IMO. Already I've seen too many Americans who have become sheeple, that is, willing to accept what should not be acceptable. I made a comment to that effect HERE a few minutes ago.

      Delete
  8. I like this new comment format. It's good to be able to preview one's remarks before publishing, and it should be very helpful to be able to reply directly to the person addressed.

    In short, even though I tend to resist change, because so much is burdensome, insubstantial, and unhelpful, this particular change is a significant improvement.

    Thanks, AOW, for refreshing and toning up your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We are all part of Hillary's village, now.

    I do like this comment format much better than the old one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Don't worry, this will only be used agains leftists and Muslims.

    The right wing isn't about to step out of line.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What IS this 's stuff that appears in place of a simple clean apostrophe?

    It's very annoying.

    Some "automatic" electronic clumsiness that kicks in, I suppose.

    I've seen it in any number of places before, but never here.

    Is this the downside of the new format, perhaps? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that is REALLY weird. The conglomeration of symbols DISAPPEARED when I typed it in, and automatically reverted back to the apostrophe!

      I'm out of phase with the times, I know, but WHY do have to put up with this?

      I want to be in CONTROL of whatever I CHOOSE to type when I make a statement, DAMMIT!

      GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! ;-)

      Delete
    2. FT,
      I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're irate about.

      Delete
    3. FT,
      I think I see what you mean. I see the weird symbols in "Ducky's here."

      Delete
    4. YES! Not so much "irate" as curious, AOW.

      I don't like it when machines make involuntary wrong decisions FOR us -- or RIGHT ones either for that matter. ;-)

      I'm picking on small things today, but the small crack in the dyke could destroy The Netherlands if not instantly repaired.

      All evil trends start small.

      This loss of privacy issue is HUGE. We should all March on Washington with fiery torches, yet we just keep on stitching a bitching while we cluck our tongues.

      Delete
  12. A major problem, government is. Cancel it we should.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yoda,
      Government is drunk with power.

      Still, the sheeple are content. **sigh**

      Delete
  13. "The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, "

    I bet that wev'e not seen anything yet!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Several Archie Bunkerisims come to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  15. These folks are not into open debate, only demonizing those who disagree with them. If you insult Reagan, or Bush, you insult them, no matter the facts are on your side. These people practice censorship, so only their viewpoint is expressed. They will post some of your comments, the ones they think they can make you look stupid and can easily attack you on. This practice is also part of the character of Progressive Eruptions, Swash Zone, and other so called liberal blogs. Ask Shaw(PE) why she protects RN (Rational Nation USA) from his own words, ("Jews went willingly to the gas chambers") and other antisemetic statements. Mention on her (Shaw-PE) blog that RN said that, and your comment will not be published. Better yet, ask her why she would befriend and protect someone like that, or why she stated that as far as she is concerned RN never said it and she will never mention it again. Censorship and banning is not limited to conservative blogs, there is a certain character that behaves like that, the need to be right, even if they are wrong. A childish character not worthy of being considered serious debate venues, just talking point stations. After all, people like RN have spent decades voting for and supporting Reagan ; and they won't back off even if "voodoo economics" are responsible for the financial decline of America. Good luck with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it just me? I can't tell whether you're with us or agan' us.

      Delete
  16. BTW, I vote 'Yea' on your new format, AOW.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective