Watching the Watchers
-
The places I have worked you cannot copy the data period, even DBA permissions does not let you change things without signatures that is what I am talking about.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
Classified jobs need security clearance. What about the jobs in private section liked the banks outsourced to the other countries. The banks had customer data, remembered Citibank lost the credit card tape. The same thing can happen that the offshore developers can steal the customer identity. In this country, identity threft is a crime, but if the person lives in other country, the law is not stretching out to that country. That person can walk free.
-
Gift,
Even I can break the DBA permission to change the production data no matter what kind of security they implemented. My old DBA always asked me if I could break into production to check if the security was fine. Every time I could break into it.
The hacker is one of the best developers!!!!!
-
That is very impressive...if you are indeed that good then you really should be working in an intelligence related job trying to secure the information so that hackers with evil intent can't get in...
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
That again depends on the employer, I have seen where we needed to by pass Oracle 9i security but we could not do it without the help of the security team who were on a different floor and apply security to both Network files and RDBMS.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
"Jasmine - what's your solution for "finding the actually guilty" in a country this size and being a melting-pot of various cultures and backgrounds ?!"
Policework? Investigation? Evidence? The same things we have used for centuries to catch criminals.
Culture and background has little to do with it. Ted Kaczynski, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols showed us that fairly clearly. I'm surpised anyone would even mention it.
-
culture and background are additional variables in this equation..the more variables, the more complex the resolution...as for the 3 you mention, if ratios are anything to go by then they're a minority...
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
Whatever governments do (or promise to do), there needs to be an outside body -- preferably modelled on the Open Source community -- that polices the police, as it were. Perhaps a voluntary program by which corporations and govt. agencies deploy approved monitoring software that triggers an alert whenever a query that is capable of violating privacy or perverting constitutional rights occurs. The alert would be sent automatically to a number of distributed databases, and would not contain identifying information about the target of the query -- only the source of the query and a uniquely identifiable transaction number. This would provide traceability, which would enable a start towards accountability.
Corporations and agencies that join the scheme could advertise that fact; those that don't could come under public/consumer/NGO/govt. pressure to do so.
The task would be huge, but this was never going to be an easy thing to deal with, and the longer we leave it the more Orwellian things could become.
- Allen
-
So answer me this then... should I be more suspicious of "Sushila", or "Allen"... and which one do you want me to bring in for questioning? Keep in mind I have no other indication that either of them are doing anything wrong.
When I find someone with a thousand gallons of fuel oil in the garage and no apparent reason to have it... do I ignore this situation if the person's name is "Johnson", but call the FBI if it's "al-Filastini."
It may seem obvious that the Palestinian is a more likely suspect, but there's absolutely no reason to think that - in fact, the statistical evidence points the other way. In this case, there is no evidence to suspect them, other than the mysterious fuel oil. Johnson could be a terrorist just as easily, and that's why cultural backgrounds for the most part, should be ignored - it reduces the importance of logical thinking in comparison, and that's a Bad Thing.
Background is a different thing. If someone has a criminal history, then they should be looked at a little harder than someone who's never done anything.
We are not talking about criminals here though... we're talking about spying on the minutiae of the everyday activities of average Americans, which is morally wrong and we also have laws against it.
Protecting the citizens from terrorism is paramount, but it shouldn't come at any cost. At some point, there is a price I will not pay, and if that means we open up the possibility for a terrorist attack, then so be it. I would rather have the occasional crime slip through the net, than be treated like a criminal every day all the time.
Everyone makes good points, but I am not ready to give up my freedom for a project that has little promise and disrespects every single American person without exception. It just reminds me too much of the Nazis... "where's your papers? Oh you don't have them today? Come with us."
-
Actually, that's not true. At least some of our classified technology is used to build equipment overseas. The thing that comes to mind was when we found our new night-vision technology being used in Iraq courtesy of the Russian manufacturers.
Also, guest workers are often used on classified projects within US borders. Technically, this is still "outsourcing" even if it isn't "offshoring". Nothing keeps them from bringing their knowledge back home and using it against us.
[font="Tahoma"]Bryant E. Byrd, BSSE MCDBA MCAD[/font]
Business Intelligence Administrator
MSBI Administration Blog -
I'm presuming that you speak from personal knowledge - far as I know night-vision goggles are manufactured in quite a few countries (U.K being one of the major ones)...
Re. "guest workers being used on classified projects"...again, this too is news to me...like I said, we all base our opinions on personal experience and what we get on the news - mine has been that anything that even remotely smacks of "classified" immediately gets a minimum dod clearance tagged on to it...and more often than not specifies that the job requires someone who already has an active clearance (as opposed to one who is eligible for one...) -
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
Here's a snippet of "scary news" apropos some of the stuff that was discussed on this thread...
"BETHLEHEM, Pa. - An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.
The letter by Dan Tilli, 81, was published in Monday's edition of The Express-Times of Easton, Pa. It ended with the line, "I still believe they hanged the wrong man."
Tilli said the statement was not a threat. "I didn't say who — I could've meant (Osama) bin Laden," he said Friday.
Two Secret Service agents questioned Tilli at his Bethlehem apartment Thursday, briefly searching the place and taking pictures of him, he said.
The Secret Service confirmed the encounter. Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia office, said it was the agency's duty to investigate.
The agents almost immediately decided Tilli was not a threat, Slama said "We have no further interest in Dan," he said.
Tilli said the agents appeared more relaxed when he dug out a scrapbook containing more than 200 letters that he has written over the years, almost all on political topics.
"He said, 'Keep writing, but just don't make no threats,'" Tilli said of one of the agents.
It wasn't Tilli's first run-in with the federal government over his letter writing. Two FBI agents from Allentown showed up at his home last year about a letter he wrote advocating a civil war to unseat Bush, he said."
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
Same thing happened to me when I wrote a letter to Clinton back in those days (I was not aware that he was due to visit Denver soon, so the timing of my letter seemed suspicious). I think this is a sign of things working correctly. Nothing to be worried about. If you make threats, you should be investigated. Particularly if you send them directly to the President. The President is a target and should be protected as such - vague threats should be taken seriously.
This is not a case where private information was used against someone. It's a case of the Secret Service doing a very fine job when there was clearly something weird going on. Having the Secret Service show up is a little alarming, but they really are interested in only one thing, protecting the President (and catching counterfeiters). They didn't even bother to confiscate my weed
-
All I can say is that if the secret service has to check up on every Charlie (or Jane) who voices an opinion - over the phone - via an editiorial - to friends in a public place - then they're going to be worn thin soon..
This guy did not write directly to the president - I, like you, sent an email directly to the Prez and am only now beginning to wonder if that had not been an extremely rash & stupid thing to do..?!?!
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
I didn't notice that. He did the only thing possibly worse... he published it in the paper. And yes, they do have to check out every possible threat. Secret Service officers who are chosen to gaurd the President are the best of the best. The Secret Service is a branch of the Treasury Department, so they also investigate issues concerning the money supply, like counterfeiting. Overall they probably are spread pretty thin, but so is everybody else right now. Brings up another issue with spying on people's private lives - more leads to chase down, most of them false suspicions, and an increase in the chance that actual criminal activity will not be noticed.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply