LOL...kinda surprise that person like Bittertruth aka I-know-everything does not know what is carrier IQ?
BTW...when I said I-know-all, I didnt mean to be sarcastic, take that as a compliment.

@rahashya
LOL!!! i know rite!!! hahaha

I never said I-know-all. but it's great of you to think like that about me.
btw, I never really gave any attention to the companies keeping logs on my  phone and retrieving it without my concern. I heard the news but puffff.. forgotten. Had I cared about it, I would have taken time to do little google search like you did to learn about it.
I'm not ashamed for not knowing it but you took egoic pride to prove that you knew something I was unaware of which had no importance to me anyway.

@sleepless,

I didnt do google search. This is one of the few thing that i know, which you have no idea. Other than that you know better than me.

i thought android savvy would know such stuff!! ROFL!!!
is it just me that i find bittertruth's view absolutely annoying???
"but you took egoic pride to prove that you knew something I was unaware of which had no importance to me anyway." WTF was that ???? LOL ???

alece, the thing about me is the truth. That's real me brother.
I honestly could have searched online and replied you as if I've known the term.
I did that in fact but I thought I would be such a faker if I had acted that way.
I counter-questioned you asking about the term to know how you describe it
but just like good-old bully, you tried to blow me up humiliating for something
I didn't know. The exact phrase I would use here in your case is
damn co-cky educated-moron.
That's not how you tell people about how you know? 

Regarding you finding me annoying, you are such a liar. You ended your sentence
with "LOL" which obviously mean funny gestures in written form
that means you are finding me not annoying but amusing.

i thought android savvy would know such stuff!!
not necessarily. I don't think so. I use it but I don't know lot of things about it.

i didn't know LOL with question mark meant amusing!!!
O.o

YAWNNN!!!

Heads up:
News surfaced just 10 minutes ago(5/1/2012 9:38 PST) suggested that if the CISPA is passed, government simply can't handle the data.
I remember when I wrote this couple of days ago, someone I don't know(don't even give my tiny bit of care to scroll up and find out who wrote that) implied that it's easy for government to tackle information harvesting out of 310 million people. I knew I was right and it's just a common sense, come on, it's 310 million peoples life and their data and with limited workforce??? impossible.
::src::

With this what I meant is this bill needs serious, very serious amendments over privacy concerns and we definitely need this bill for security of our infrastructures based on cyber intelligence. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) last week. The bill now proceeds to the Senate and may end up on the President's desk anytime.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, better known as CISPA, cleared the House of Representatives late last week.

CISPA aims to allow private businesses to share information about cybersecurity threats with one another and with the federal government. Proponents say that sharing helps beef up American networks’ defense against cyberattacks, but opponents have — justifiably — warned that it would put Internet users’ privacy in jeopardy.

CISPA truly had the potential to become decent cybersecurity legislation. Information sharing between businesses is a good idea, but when you get the federal government and shady intelligence organizations like the National Security Agency involved, it seems as if Big Brother is looking over our shoulders while we browse our favorite websites.

There’s a reason Rep. Hank Johnson, while debating CISPA, said that it “feels like 1984 in this House today.”

Sadly, amendments that would’ve addressed those privacy fears were blocked from discussion by House leadership for reasons unknown. The version of CISPA passed by the House last week did little to address worries that the bill would jeopardize Internet users’ privacy, disappointing some — myself included.

Now CISPA’s headed to the Senate, where two things can happen: It can be stripped of its Orwellian language, leaving a decent bill that allows private firms to share threat information with one another while protecting users’ privacy, or it can be killed off and Congress can adopt new cybersecurity legislation and try again.

src here::

Sign the petition against CISPA as you know today,
We just need 1 million petition.
Click this link below:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa_corporate_global/?fp

The end of Internet privacy

Tell Your Friends

Regardless of the outcome, 'wise' ones will figure out ways to get around. This will be no better than picking low-hanging fruits. I'd buy that it can be a short-term deterrent approach to discourage some. BTW, 'TOR' was a bad example, in this context. Whoever is determined to monitor the onion router jumble, I wish them good luck! I personally don't like TOR, because it takes away my user-experience by terribly slowing things down; but I admire the way it works; and people use it for many reasons besides 'evil-work'. I don't see a direct link between CISPA and the use of TOR.

~@~

If CISPA is to enforce at it's current form, consider TOR and any other anonymous services dead. This is just one aspect of what CISPA can do. I still wish CISPA be more focused on security than privacy.
Please read the PDF above first, and then comment back.
Don't make fool of yourself.

The question is not about what's written on PDF, it's about the relevance of proxy usage within CISPA's scope, and technical complications associated with guarding against anonymizing methods.

"If CISPA is to enforce at it's current form, consider TOR and any other anonymous services dead. This is just one aspect of what CISPA can do."

@bittertruth: You didn't write the PDF -- so you trying to justify its intent is useless. None of us here knows how far this can, or will go!

I challenge you to technically walk me through steps on how you can 'kill' one of the simplest forms of anonymizer. Forget Tor, I'll give you an easy scenario:

How do you police and prevent an attacker (A) from pwn'ing a victim (V)'s system, and spoofing his identity through proxying activities via V's machine; all within the Internet jumble (ie., you don't know who the victim will be, and don't know who the attacker is)?

Note: We're not looking for a detective measure here -- we're after proactive protection. Neither Tor, nor any other anonymizer out there can provide 'total' protection against tracebacks, so detection is possible; but based on your above claim -- CISPA's job (who's hat you're wearing now) here is to STOP that from happening! 

If you don't know the answer, feel free to deviate the topic and add more garbage -- I'll simply ignore your updates.

If you do, and can technically justify it, I'll come back here and acknowledge.

~@~



 

sajha, I've read the PDF and I've never said or conveyed, that I've written it. I just drew my conclusion from what I understood. Certain use of words on the bill is little vague and it gives enough room for skepticism and assumptions. But when I said TOR could be a history, it says it right there. CISPA in it's 'current form' could see TOR as a potential threat . Did you really read the phrase 'Current Form' at my comment above?? btw, I'm not justifying this bill, I'm analyzing it and it's no-brainer. What made you think I'm justifying it? Didn't you read my comments for and against it? and why I made comments both ways?? 

Did you also read "CISPA could be more focused on security than privacy" the statement that I've posted in the comment above? 

My original intent is CISPA be enforced.

My current intent is CISPA be enforced..

B U T, not in it's current state. If you carefully went through my posts, I've equally supported and dejected CISPA for it's Privacy concerns.

We need protection from cyber threat(read comments I made above for WHY before making another comment on this say), CISPA could be proven essentially helpful but not at the expense of endusers privacy taken down at "extreme" level, I've to say NO.

In conclusion, " We need CISPA but it should and must address Privacy Concerns of enduser so that it's not violated the way it's now"

PS:
1. How do you police and prevent an attacker........
-First off, enduser must update it's system to the latest to ensure it's free of all malwares or trojans..
-Second off, if they don't comply, their system must be taken down( That's what Government is doing,)
Well fortified system is not only hard to break in but impossible :D
This is how you can prevent an attacker from injecting malwares on to your PC.

2. And if they happen to find out about the attacker's trace, TOR could give them hard time and nobody likes to have a hard time to get job done. They will shut down TOR because it's a barrier. And TOR is a private company with very little workforce. If you are thinking any other open-source will rise up, they'll be black-listed or outlawed. This is the dark side of the impact of this bill that could happen and which in my opinion is little extreme. Like I wrote before, we need some changes and specific addressing on what their intent is not the vague one like it is now.

And, you don't need to be an egoic to prove you are right.
We all are right on our own judgements, We are only wrong when we spend our energy to prove another wrong. I've no intention to prove you wrong.

@bittertruth
-enduser must update its's system to the latest to ensure it's free of all malwares or trojans ? REALLY ??
do u know how long does Microsoft takes to patch even the known vulnerabilities?? and wat about 0 Day Exploits ? how to defend those ??
##well fortified system is not only hard to break in but impossible --- again REALLY ???
EVERY SYSTEM CAN BE COMPROMISED~~~~it's just the matter of time & foolishness of user!!!

and abt TOR, don't you think government could backdoor TOR ?

Microsoft releases patch every other week on Tue and Wed.

okay, I'll password protect my data with 256-bit AES encryption and you break it in another 25,000 years. I know it's just a matter of time.

lol bittertruth!!!!!
u are funny!!!
25,000 years!! ROFL!!!!
dont forget Rijnadael was also created by a HUMAN BEING!!!
no algorithm will be secure for forever!!!! a person with limited resources might never break it !! but when a country gets involved with its computing power!! it will be cracked someday!!
and i didn't ask about Microsoft update days!! i asked about patching the known vulnerabilities!!!

how far we have come from WEP encryption of our wireless network?? don't forget with parallel processing RSA will be easier to crack!!! and yeah AES is the strongest right now!!! it hasn't been cracked yet, the only attack that exists is side channel attack!!!
goddamn just realized i had to write a simple RSA encryption/decryption program!!!
LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS DANGERIOUS- unknown
:D

alece, you have a programmer's mind, in that sense, you are a brilliant mind.
Doesn't mean that they don't miss asking silly questions sometimes.

And, thanks for saying me funny, now you are getting me. :D 
That's what everybody around me says in real life. and I love it when I get that. I take it as compliment

no matter whatever securities the organization will put there will always be people trying to figure out how to break it!!! the cat & mouse fight will always go on!!! perfect example - apple vs jailbreak community!!!


@bittertruth - i bet lot of people find you funny!! maybe in weird way ?? LOL
oh how i wish i had a brilliant mind!!:P