Topic: FBI wants backdoor to all software (Read 4901 times)

I feel this kind of surveillance is widespread. I recently changed my telecoms operator, and they provided me with a backdoored router. Even though I notified the company about the issue, they refused to change it.

Not only is the admin password not hashed, it is also accessible remotely by the telco company and whoever has access to the router.

Explanation in Spanish: http://www.securitybydefault.com/2012/08/nuevos-routers-asl-26555-de-movistar.html

"auto-updates" = Backdoor

Paranoid people are paranoid.

A bit of hyperinflation curtesy of our friends at the FED and their "quantitive easings"?

This all damn day!

That is the problem, not the US election system. Look at Europe where the system is different; pirate parties are there but the gojim don't vote for them. They need to get it hard from behind, really really hard, before they wake up.

The retards deserve it but the problem is, everybody else is suffering too.

A fiat currency crash would be desirable as a wakeup call.

Wow...

1984 anyone?

In the US, third parties don't really push this as much as they should, but the US is not just a de facto Two Party system, it is encouraged through most states' laws ("to prevent confusion among voters"). It's extremely expensive and otherwise resource-intensive for third-party candidates to get on the ballot in most states. If the party doesn't pick up somewhere between 1-5% of votes in a state in the previous election (and it resets each cycle), they're not allowed to get on the ballot without tens or hundreds of thousands of signatures. Third party campaigns are mostly a battle to get on the ballot, and much (sometimes all) of the funds donated are going toward that instead of any type of marketing. While Two Party candidates are out campaigning, Third Party candidates hitchhiking to different states to collect signatures.

While there is a Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, Socialist Party, and a handful of others -- they can receive millions a year in donations, but still not even appear on the ballot in a given state. The Libertarian Party in particular seems to like measuring their success by how many ballots they get on instead of how many votes they pick up, because that's the metric all the time and money's being spent on, while other third parties are lucky to get on the ballots of a small handful of states with relatively lax ballot laws.

Ballot laws are generally less intense for Congress, but the donor/volunteer pool is also much smaller for congressional seats, and third parties are largely seen as a joke in the US, so even if they got on the ballot, the same "oh, I can't vote for him because he'll never win" mentality will persist. People in the US rarely vote for who they think is the best candidate, but assume there are two viable candidates and that they must pick between those two to not waste their vote ("lesser of two evils" mentality).

This is really related to the tone of this thread.. I lovr it, it's true, funny and everyone should have listen to it at least once..

Culture in Decline | Episode #1 "What Democracy?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2k

(preaching to the choir)   

This is called "voting".

That's my point. How many people would vote someone out because they voted for increased gun control, compared with how many would vote them out because they didn't? Even though the majority were for it, the majority are also not single issue voters and will not let it affect their vote.

EDIT: but yes, saying 'gun control' rather than 'preventing gun control' was possibly misleading.

And also +1 on the moving this topic.

This is more of a US social (or political) topic and probably belongs in that area.  Bitcoin does not even relate to this. Not everyone is a US citizen.  That's why I raised the question.  

But here is my two cents....screw the FBI! 

Really? Cuz last I checked no gun control laws have been passed since Sandy Hook and they have turned their focus from SOPA to CISPA...they let the public cry out, pretend to care, then wait 6 months when everyone has forgotten and return to business as usual.

rinse, wash, repeat.


In the strictest sense it doesn't but bitcoin was intended, at least partially, as a way to restrict government intervention (granted in currency rather than security) but they both relate to how the government treats the privacy of individuals. Its a tenuous relation at best but I will take it 

They don't need it, lol. They kick down the door. DUuh.

Although you have a point, and that's how a democracy should work, I personally just don't want to control how other people live their lives, which is what a democracy is about.  Further, even if people were on their game and actually kicked people out of office when they didn't perform satisfactorily, we're still stuck with someone else for however long it is until they can be reelected, whether we like them or not.

If people were smart enough to do that, the answer would be a direct democracy, as opposed to a representational democracy, where everyone is a politician however many times out of the year it takes.  If we're okay with enforcing how other people live and how companies should do business, that's what we should be rooting for.  I have no idea if this will squash corruption, as you would still need a strong, central force of power to enact on these decisions, in either form of democracy.  But I'm personally rooting for freedom, so neither systems cut it.

Does this really belong in the bitcoin thread when it has zero to do with bitcoins?  Just saying....

I don't think it needs to be that drastic. If people make noise and have a solid message, politicians will realise this will affect their career. It happened with SOPA. It happens with gun control.

The problem is that people don't realize that they have a choice. It has been ingrained in our minds that voting for a third party is giving away your vote for the last several generations. That leaves you with a republican or a democrat. the two parties have done a great job of dividing themselves on a whole host of inconsequential issues while having the exact same views towards the largest most pressing issues of the day. Doesn't matter which party you pick the results will be exactly the same until a viable third party emerges...or revolution. Its pretty much as simple as that.

And that is not the backdoor?