Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Internet privacy poll

  1. Every packet is monitored and goes through a keyword search in some big computer somewhere

    7 vote(s)
    36.8%
  2. People the government is interested are closely monitored, with or without a court order

    7 vote(s)
    36.8%
  3. A court order is required to monitor personal communications (emails, etc) and this is enforced

    2 vote(s)
    10.5%
  4. Other

    3 vote(s)
    15.8%
  1. Dec 15, 2007 #1

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Not sure where exactly this belongs, so I thought I'd try GD. Note that I have no clue as to the actual answer is, but I"m interested in what people's opinions are.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 15, 2007 #2
    First option. I know the NSA records and watches everything with their supercomputers.

    They have always had the latest TS supercomputers. Im sure the have a large room ful of very very powerful computers reading emails around the world, not just the US.

    The NSA is above the law. For years it was 'no such agency'. That should tell you something. Its nothing but black projects. The building is literally a big black box.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2007
  4. Dec 15, 2007 #3

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Would "I don't know" fall under "other?" I don't think anyone checks every email, but I suspect (without evidence) that there probably are people who do get a bit more closely monitored (and of course there's no prohibition of monitoring non-citizens without a court order), and I suspect there are certain government sites that will attach a cookie to monitor what you're up to at least for a while. But, there's no way every packet could be monitored (or I don't think so anyway), not even for a keyword search.

    Then again, I have friends who have requested their FBI files (they had a reason to need them), and were surprised at the things that appeared in them. One of them had written a letter to Gorbachev as a kid for a school assignment on writing letters, and there was a copy of it in his file! It wasn't a problem, because it was criticizing him, but it was still surprising that a letter written by a kid would wind up in an FBI file.
     
  5. Dec 15, 2007 #4
    I was looking for an option between the first and second. I'm sure persons of interest are thoroughly monitored but I doubt they inspect every packet of an audio or video file transmitted peer-to-peer for hidden words, for example. So the "every packet" thing seems unlikely. But I do expect them to sniff everything they reasonably can at the very least on some random sampling basis since it's their job to keep ears and eyes and noses open.
     
  6. Dec 15, 2007 #5
    Maybe I'm missing something, but why should it matter if he is criticizing him or praising everything he did?

    I voted for the second option. I have no doubt that the constitution is ignored quite often, especially when it is so easy to do so with internet traffic.
     
  7. Dec 15, 2007 #6

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Because they were checking their FBI files to make sure they could be escorts in the motorcade for a presidential candidate, and if it was in support of communism, they might have been considered a security threat. I should have been clearer. It might not have been an issue if he had supported him in his letter, but a lot easier to explain his "patriotism" that he didn't.
     
  8. Dec 15, 2007 #7
    Ah, that makes a lot more sense. :)


    Thank you for clarifying.
     
  9. Dec 16, 2007 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I attended a lecture by (can't recall his name now, incredible guy)He is/was in inner White House circles. He's a former technology advisor to Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, The Executive Office of the President of the United States, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's fascinating, if you go to the wrong places on the internet, for example I learned that if you subscribe to 2600, you will automatically be placed on the FBI's watch list. :bugeye: Don't do it. If you download questionable porn, go to subversive websites, are involved in subversize activities, involved in criminal activity online, yeah it's likely you'll be put on a watch list. The lecture was not for the public, but for us that are inside the Internet backbone business. It was a proprietary look into cyber vulnerability.

    If you are an average Joe and use common sense, you will be unknown, there just isn't the time and personnel to evaluate everything.

    Of course you will always visit websites that add marketing cookies that track what you do online, so be sure to have software to remove them if you don't want this marketing info tracked.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2007
  10. Dec 16, 2007 #9
    yep--everything--everything that anybody does on the 'net' is watched by someone---and the more sites and 'words' you use that are 'bad' the higher on the list you become


    so---you better watch out, you better not.......
     
  11. Dec 16, 2007 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not really. If you have a private connection to the internet and depending on what you do online, you may never be subject to anything. A private connection gets you into the internet without the use of an ISP/content provider.

    Seriously, no one cares if Aunt Ida is sending pictures of her grandchildren or complaining about her arthritis, or the condition of her peonies. No one is going to waste time on that.
     
  12. Dec 16, 2007 #11
    Aunt Ida would be 'low' on the list---. Not too long ago, Google and other companies were included in some 'government' work of which Google wasn't going to supply all of its records. I don't know what became of it (another cover-over maybe)---from cookies to financial, its all kept track of someplace---it just depends on what you say (on sites and emails, just like the phones) and where you go-----

    You don't think that the government is watching the Physics Forum?
     
  13. Dec 16, 2007 #12
    Just clean up the mess left behind. powerful tool.
     
  14. Dec 16, 2007 #13
  15. Dec 16, 2007 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I would assume so.
     
  16. Dec 16, 2007 #15
    Has anyone heard of www.savetheinternet.com

    It turns out that packets are monitored for p2p clients and instead of blocking ports some like Comcast inject packets pretending to be someone else and preventing a download.
     
  17. Dec 16, 2007 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is a crock, people don't understand what premium services are, companies that buy premiuim services will not prevent cheaper websites from being accessed. It will be like it always has been. Large companies that can afford the best services and the larger bandwidths are going to have sites that download faster (one trick is to cache static content at locations nearest the end user all around the network) the better quality services have less latency, less packet loss, and less jitter. Companies that can't afford a Tier One provider, enhanced services, or ample bandwidth will have slower loading sites with more problems. That's just the way it is. The internet is owned by private companies and the better the service, the more it costs.
     
  18. Dec 16, 2007 #17

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I suspect we've had enough topics with enough of the right keyword combinations to keep someone at the NSA entertained poking their nose in here every once in a while.

    Then again, I don't have to guess whether I'm on some watch list. My signature has appeared on enough forms to order things the government restricts since 9/11 to guarantee they're building a nice fat file on me. What's pretty hilarious is the stuff I have purchased is quite harmless, it just sounds bad because of the name and what it's derived from, so it's on the restricted materials list.
     
  19. Dec 16, 2007 #18
    I think I've badmouthed bush enough that I'm on his 'private' watch list.
     
  20. Dec 16, 2007 #19

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You really think that was just the "flu" you had, huh? :wink:
     
  21. Dec 16, 2007 #20
    Have you seen how they are degrading the services?

    Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2217866,00.asp
    Comcast is peeking & injecting packets to prevent connections to control internet flow.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Internet privacy poll
  1. If there is a poll (Replies: 5)

  2. This is a poll (Replies: 10)

  3. The internet (Replies: 18)

  4. A poll (Replies: 3)

Loading...