Making terrorists use your method of passing messages is a pretty good outcome from the governments point of view. That will significantly increase the difficulty of planning complex operations - and of course significantly increase the chances of getting caught in the game itself.

Not to mention it still catches many of the less sophisticated 'terrorists'.

Lol they probably have a dick pic algorithm in place.

Oh please, the example I gave is an example that was probably used 10 years ago and nobody would have known.
I would rather be paid for any method that is actually worth something than post it for free on this board.

edit: anyway I hope you get the point of the post above.

I hope you get the point that the bar to make something effective isn't that it works 100% of the time with no possible work arounds.

Edit: Your comment also seems to show a lack of understanding of what can be done with the data that's being collected. You might be able to talk to your immediate co-conspirators through completely safe means - but you can't talk to many other individuals in the same way. Any non-trivial plot is going to involve communicating/interacting with a bunch of people that aren't in on the plot.

I think if a flight school got a request to communicate through WoW items being dropped on the ground they might be suspicious of your motivations for learning to fly.

Oh yah I get that point but the given situation could just be a waste of tax dollar. :/

I'm on the side of the fence that privacy is a good thing and outweighs the bad people that use it.

Throwing a wrench into privacy by having backdoors and crypto that isn't secure hurts the possibility of people every overthrowing their government if it needs to happen. The constitution was built on keeping that option available for the people.

Now since i'm not a math wizard I have to spend countless hours reading on if I should be using RSA or Ed25519 and I'll probably be going with the latter but wouldn't it be nice if the governments job was to test and work on that stuff. Have third parties that are outside of the US monitoring it that agrees with the principles of privacy being necessary but nope.

That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with your first post.

Idk first post seems like a jab at the NSA and saying there will always be a new way that they are not monitoring. Yet it doesn't matter if you agree with the last post.

Just because you disagree with someone, it does not make them unintelligent.

There are very intelligent people on both sides.

It only matters in the sense that I don't like bad arguments.

Arguing that their work is completely ineffective and they're a bunch of idiots - is wrong. And proponents of what the NSA does are right to argue that and easily show how you are wrong.

Which is why the argument should stick with the moral one. That privacy is important and that lowering the already extremely small risk of being attacked by a 'terrorist' isn't worth sacrificing fundamental individual rights.

An intelligent person that works on something that isn't for the greater good is not really being intelligent.

sending a lot of dick picks is not the same as sending a lot of picks of my dick

they'll know a wiener in intimate detail...

I need a selfie stick to get all my junk in the frame. #HEYNOW #UPTOP

They might be wrong, but being intelligent isn't about being right or wrong.

If you think you're intelligent but work on something that does harm to humanity you're not intelligent.

So yes it actually does matter, specially when it being your life's work and their fools if they don't realize it.

People that are intelligent don't go do work and not think of what their work is used for or what the negative possibilities could be from it.

They can be classified as skilled but not intelligent and labeled as idiots.

Jester is allowed to have his own opinions. Take the good with the bad. He downed a few terrorists sites but also downed Wikileaks. He seems fairly consistent in his work whether you agree with him or not.

I don't think you can find anyone you fully agree with if you search deep enough.

I work for a company I vehemently disagree with. I get a paycheck.

I believe facebook is pure evil, but I wouldn't deny the intellect of anyone that works there.

What standard of "harm" are you trying to talk about, and what water-tight definition are you using here? Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them stupid or anti-intellectual. Two very different ideas.

Significant difference between supporting a mass spying program that goes against your country's constitution and whatever you're trying to compare dave.

Might as well just give the finger to whatever law there is and go by lets not get caught anything goes mentality.

How is facebook's shadow profiles not a mass spying program?

I agree with you that Facebook is pretty evil but they are not comparable.
People can opt out of Facebook if they choose, its not hard to do and the NSA is an intelligence organization of the United States government not comparable to Facebook being a company offering a service.

Maybe it should be a browser's responsibility to prevent facebook from shadowing users that opt out if they are still pulling data from friends that don't opt out.

The people of the US cannot opt out of being spied on, when they use practically every internet service available. It goes against what the constitution was built upon and I don't believe we will argue that.

The possibility of abuse that can be carried out is huge but nobody should even have to worry about that if it didn't exist.

Please keep politics to the politics forums.

Iosys, I'll just say that thinking ones own personal definition of 'greater good' is the one true definition is really dangerous.

I'm quite sure there are intelligent people that think the NSA program is a net benefit to humanity because they have different values and beliefs than you.

I'd be happier with the NSA's actions if they showed any signs of being effective. It was a catch 22 for them but since the cat's out of the bag they should be saying this is what we've been able to do by gathering all your metadata.

Re: The discussion about people kicking tires, and not responding to people, etc.

Figured I would provide a day-in-the-life example of a current prospect conversation I am having, that is completely typical and happens all the time.

Inbound lead through our website, company looking to build a community website

Get on the phone with her, speak through her idea and situation. She is a VC investor who also is hands-on with her main investment. They are a 40-50ee company out of the San Fran area. They have a "spin-off" idea that is tangentially related to their current business model. We speak about a site we built for another company, she asks what it would cost to basically clone that site, but for them, in a completely different industry that doesn't compete whatsoever.

If we can do it for X price, she will present it as the best option.

I get the info to our lawyer, and the contract we have with the client. He agrees we can use a lot of the core code, change the theming, etc. as long as it doesn't compete. This is based on our license agreements and the fact we use open-source

While we are going back and forth with lawyer, I get this email

I get on the horn to the lawyer to speed it up a bit.

A week goes by... so I send:

Response:

That was 8 days ago, it has been radio silence since. The chance this closes has approached 1-5%.

Bonus: They want their app to be on Heroku and Post[rhymes with posh]gries-squell.

Disregard that last post, just saved that deal. Will probably close by the end of the month.

Point kinda stands tho!

When you have super legit people that are appearing and disappearing constantly, it is hard to get excited about a 4 pager for a random consultant.

so how did you save the deal in that 22-minute time span?

A 20 minute call. Ldo

Actually just sent this email

It is basically this: http://themagicemail.com/ but even shorter. Because shorter is nearly always better.