| Pages:
1
2 |
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here is the section of Title 10 of the US Code law on PC Act that pretty forcibly restricts Navy+Marines, not in the PC Act itself: 10 U.S.C. §375.
NG swears two oaths, to state and federal constitutions, but when acting in Title 10 federal capacity is considered Army for Army National Guard.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  | Here is the section of Title 10 of the US Code law on PC Act that pretty forcibly restricts Navy+Marines, not in the PC Act itself: 10 U.S.C. §375.
NG swears two oaths, to state and federal constitutions, but when acting in Title 10 federal capacity is considered Army for Army National Guard.
|
The PCA was originally army only. Various modifications have been made through the years. Now there are exceptions for terrorist attacks and natural
disasters. The exception for active insurrection was removed in 2008, I think. The army can also act against foreign persons on American soil, ie.
to stop illegal immigration or foreign militias, armies and unlawful combatants.
The navy and marines are restricted by regulations, not law, drawn by the dept. of defense. The law specifying these regulations could easily be
reinterpreted from its clear meaning. Oh side note, other laws can be interpreted to mean that intentional injury of a cop is an act of terrorism, so
in theory the army can be called out if someone attacks a cop. Not sure what this really has to do with the original incident except for the NG at
the scene, which isn't covered be PCA unless they are nationalized by the President.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
We disagree. National Guard has no authority unless activated by the governor or president, so it is a little more complicated than just being
prohibited when activated by the president. They then must be activated through the authority of the governor. All these minor points about what
constitutes justification for activation are irrelevant to the procedure itself. Your logic means that the governor's office was somehow alerted and
activated the National Guard for this case. That sounds fishy to me given my knowing more than one governor. Now I don't know the secret details of
the applicable governor's machinations, so I am ignorant of that, but it sounds weird to me. Possible, but weird... at least in my state (working off
of hurricane deployments, including out of state to Katrina). Their state may work differently. This is part of why I was asking; perhaps someone
could inform me that their state has active units for some other reason that were re-assigned, or their constitution is drawn up differently.
And of course the PCA has been amended. Most notably in 1981, but this likely isn't relevant. You said it only technically applies to Army and AF. Not
true. Law binds it to Navy and Marines. Specifics are delegated to DoD, but the law is applicable. Whether you can argue it in court is irrelevant. It
is also irrelevant to my original point of the Army National Guard, and was originally phrased in a manner I believe is not accurate. PCA applies to
Marines and Navy through law, title 10 USC, in contrast with what you had said. If you had said the law itself read as being, or was originally not
applied to other branches, you would have a historical point.
[Edited on 16-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't think it would be difficult (for the NSA, CIA etc) to automate. The big part is getting the taps on the data line of any interesting site or
the user. These record the IP address and the arrival/departure times the data is sent/recieved. (the meta data, Snoden said they are already doing
this).
You then build a signature from these times and match them up. As long as the data path is constant and delay time variation << than the time
between data exchanges (mouse clicks) after 5-10 data exchanges they can match you. For a low traffic site given enough exchanges from a visitor,
there is no need to even match the IP addresses.
The matching should be O(N) where N is the number being watched.
First sort them into bins bases on the times. N=millions is not an issue.
I think TOR uses the same data path for each session, so its no help,
against the NSA, its a "honey pot".
Algorithm:
Write bot to read SM look for interesting words.
Identify interesting poster, get his post times.
Match post times to data io times
Match data times to joe-blows data times tapped from his ISP.
Send robot cop to arrest joe
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1347
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gregxy | I don't think it would be difficult (for the NSA, CIA etc) to automate. The big part is getting the taps on the data line of any interesting site or
the user. These record the IP address and the arrival/departure times the data is sent/recieved. (the meta data, Snoden said they are already doing
this).
You then build a signature from these times and match them up. As long as the data path is constant and delay time variation << than the time
between data exchanges (mouse clicks) after 5-10 data exchanges they can match you. For a low traffic site given enough exchanges from a visitor,
there is no need to even match the IP addresses.
The matching should be O(N) where N is the number being watched.
First sort them into bins bases on the times. N=millions is not an issue.
I think TOR uses the same data path for each session, so its no help,
against the NSA, its a "honey pot".
Algorithm:
Write bot to read SM look for interesting words.
Identify interesting poster, get his post times.
Match post times to data io times
Match data times to joe-blows data times tapped from his ISP.
Send robot cop to arrest joe |
Haha, explain how this could be achieved in O(N) time? 
Again, they have bigger fish to fry. They have the resources to do whatever they want. The point was to not make your self an easier target, that is
completely susceptible during a drive by attack.
Tor also combines multiple messages during forwarding, so ingress can not easily be correlated to egress. You would have to capture a lot of Tor
traffic to do this, and I mean across all nodes in the Tor network.
You have over simplified the problem and inflated your important as a target to them.
I am not here to debate Tor or whatever. Just take the necessary precautions that you believe will put one or more steps in between you and them. Use
clear text browser sessions, what do I care? Go ahead. Nothing will likely happen, simply because SM itself is not a target.
[Edited on 16-4-2015 by Loptr]
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Loptr | | From what I recall, the most revealing tell of an HTTPS connection is the URL and querystring that you see in your address bar. IIRC, that is
unencrypted. |
Hell no, that would completely defeat the purpose of SSL/TLS!
This was also the reason why for HTTPS you needed an IP address per virtual host, since the name of the virtual host is sent in the encrypted message
creating a chicken and egg problem.
The problem was fixed (intermittently?) by SNI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication though I'm not sure how widely deployed this is.
It may become obsolete anyway with IPv6, since with that we get a bazillion (give or take) IP addresses per physical device.  On the other hand you might consider it a disadvantage that the IP address is
unambiguously associated with one virtual host.
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
I still have seen nothing on what actually caused this whole incident... And am curious, as I lived in twin cities for a while.
The rest of the security related stuff could better go in another recent thread.
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1347
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by turd | | Quote: Originally posted by Loptr | | From what I recall, the most revealing tell of an HTTPS connection is the URL and querystring that you see in your address bar. IIRC, that is
unencrypted. |
Hell no, that would completely defeat the purpose of SSL/TLS!
This was also the reason why for HTTPS you needed an IP address per virtual host, since the name of the virtual host is sent in the encrypted message
creating a chicken and egg problem.
The problem was fixed (intermittently?) by SNI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication though I'm not sure how widely deployed this is.
It may become obsolete anyway with IPv6, since with that we get a bazillion (give or take) IP addresses per physical device. On the other hand you might consider it a disadvantage that the IP address is
unambiguously associated with one virtual host. |
You're right, turd. For some reason, I thought the first line in the HTTP request header was visible. I am not sure why I thought this--memory from
somewhere.
| Quote: | | GET /webpage.htm HTTP/1.1 |
I think I am confusing it with the HTTP CONNECT method, that is initially sent over HTTP in cleartext, which then causes a secure session to be
established.
[Edited on 16-4-2015 by Loptr]
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
I am going to split this thread and merge most of it with a recent thread more in line with the computer security subject...
If anyone knows anything about OP's neighborhood chemist- Love to hear it.
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
It was Cou! He chlorinated the sewer system in a hasty attempt to flush the evidence.I believe he got his arm stuck in the john, and had to dial 911.
That's what I heard.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
