Main Nav

Thanks to my buddy, Bryce Galbraith for this link. If you take a look at the Cybersecurity section, all of us have used these words in emails since it's our job. The link pretty much says what the topic is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hundreds-words-avoid-using-online-dont-want-government-spying-you.html

To my fellow conspirators who want a pork sandwich in Mexico, I salute you! This'll make sense when you read the article. :-)

-r.


Comments

I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring.   I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings.  

Do folks remember back in the usenet days (are they really gone?) People would add "interesting" words at the bottom of posts with the tag line "Food for the NSA Line Eater!"

-Jeff

Message from pete@shadows.uottawa.ca

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 07:04:33PM -0400, Jeffrey Schiller wrote: > Do folks remember back in the usenet days (are they really gone?) People > would add "interesting" words at the bottom of posts with the tag line > "Food for the NSA Line Eater!" What??? You mean you're still not doing that? Actually, I think you're getting a bit old and combining two things. The line eater was a bug where a line disappeared between the header and content. The line eater thing was the FIRST line of the posting. Food for the NSA was a sig thing. -- Pete Hickey Does Alqaeda really eat pork from Mexico The University of Ottawa when the team plans terrorism attacks? Canada
Message from lat@vt.edu

Geez Randy, you and I have probably been on the list since before DHS. Especially considering I copy you on every "courtesy" message I send to abuse contacts. From the fingers of randy marchany: > Thanks to my buddy, Bryce Galbraith for this link. If you take a look at > the Cybersecurity section, all of us have used these words in emails since > it's our job. The link pretty much says what the topic is. > > [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hundreds-words-avoid-using-online-dont-want-government-spying-you.html > > To my fellow conspirators who want a pork sandwich in Mexico, I salute > you! This'll make sense when you read the article. :-) > > -r. > > References > > Visible links > 1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hundreds-words-... -- Laurie

And I thought they were just watching people that purchased the “Inside the NSA: America’s Cyber Secretes” DVD from National Geographic, http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/product/dvds/adventure-and-exploration/inside-the-nsa%3A-america's-cyber-secrets-dvd.

 

After 26 days backordered, I joked to my wife I must have pasted my background check. The very morning after the DVD was delivered there was car with government tags parked on our road where cars normally don’t park. We had a good laugh as we drove by the car and saw a guy wearing an Army sweat shirt stretching like he was getting ready for a run.

 

I am glad I am not paranoid, I just pretend to be.

 

Thanks…

 

Message from valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu

On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:42:45 -0400, randy marchany said: > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hundreds-words-... > > To my fellow conspirators who want a pork sandwich in Mexico, I salute you! > This'll make sense when you read the article. :-) "2600"? "Cain and Abel"? Have either of them been relevant this century??!?
When I read a story about this topic, I wonder if the story is simply true or if it is designed to sound simple enough for a news byte (mis-spelling intended). Is someone really looking at a list of people whose email contain a simple list of keywords, or is that list contained in a few hundred lines of a 500,000 line program with a complex parsing algorithm that does the scanning? I used to believe that latter was typically the case, but I have noticed a trend in our national government. With the renewal of the USA PATRIOT act, the continued use of the no-fly list (classified secret), and the passing of the NDAA. We can see that the federal government seeks to monitor without any accountability, block people from traveling without having to tell them why (ever), and to do so with the power of the military operating within our borders. hmm - if I disappear after I post this will somebody tell my family? ;^) -Vik Vik Solem, CISSP, Sr. Applications Risk Consultant Tufts University, Information Security, vik.solem@tufts.edu / 617-627-4326 InfoSec Team: information_security@tufts.edu / 617-627-6070 On May 28, 2012, at 18:54 , Gene Spafford wrote: > I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring. I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings. > >

Here's a copy of the referenced DHS document. 

Pardon if it's already been sent to the list.






And the irony and tragedy of all this is that citizens come to distrust their government and are less likely to cooperate with it. It's not unlike community policing. If the police are viewed with suspicion, they alienate the very people they are supposedly protecting, and make their job that much more difficult for themselves. This works both ways. If a government views its citizens with distrust, it will become increasingly alienated from its own people, and see its interests, and prerogatives, as distinct from those of the citizenry. At that point, its primary focus is not on protecting people, but protecting itself from the people. Marty Manjak ISO University at Albany The University at Albany will never ask you to reveal your password. Please ignore all such requests. -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Solem, Vik P. Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:40 PM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS watchlist When I read a story about this topic, I wonder if the story is simply true or if it is designed to sound simple enough for a news byte (mis-spelling intended). Is someone really looking at a list of people whose email contain a simple list of keywords, or is that list contained in a few hundred lines of a 500,000 line program with a complex parsing algorithm that does the scanning? I used to believe that latter was typically the case, but I have noticed a trend in our national government. With the renewal of the USA PATRIOT act, the continued use of the no-fly list (classified secret), and the passing of the NDAA. We can see that the federal government seeks to monitor without any accountability, block people from traveling without having to tell them why (ever), and to do so with the power of the military operating within our borders. hmm - if I disappear after I post this will somebody tell my family? ;^) -Vik Vik Solem, CISSP, Sr. Applications Risk Consultant Tufts University, Information Security, vik.solem@tufts.edu / 617-627-4326 InfoSec Team: information_security@tufts.edu / 617-627-6070 On May 28, 2012, at 18:54 , Gene Spafford wrote: > I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring. I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings. > >
I agree that a major hole here is with oversight and accountability.  No one wants those who truly wish us (or anyone) harm to be able to carry out their plans.  But with such broad surveillance, with little or no oversight, innocent people are bound to be caught up in the net.  People who have broken no laws (and who have no plans to break any laws) can become victims of the "no fly" list and other lists, simply through carelessness (e.g. their name matches a real suspect, or through a type-o in a SS#) or overzealous government activity.

I'm always suspicious of any government program which "requires" secrecy, and doesn't provide the checks and balances of requiring warrants and oversight by judges and other means in order for surveillance to occur.  Most in our government are trying to do a good job, but it's too easy, when secrecy reins, for those few who are corrupt or overzealous to seriously overstep the bounds.

Debbie Montano
MetaFlows, Inc
303 378 9762
debbie@metaflows.com
www.MetaFlows.com



---- On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:16 -0600 Manjak, Martin <mmanjak@ALBANY.EDU> wrote ----

And the irony and tragedy of all this is that citizens come to distrust their government and are less likely to cooperate with it. It's not unlike community policing. If the police are viewed with suspicion, they alienate the very people they are supposedly protecting, and make their job that much more difficult for themselves.

This works both ways. If a government views its citizens with distrust, it will become increasingly alienated from its own people, and see its interests, and prerogatives, as distinct from those of the citizenry. At that point, its primary focus is not on protecting people, but protecting itself from the people.

Marty Manjak
ISO
University at Albany

The University at Albany will never ask you to reveal your password. Please ignore all such requests.

-----Original Message-----
From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Solem, Vik P.
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:40 PM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS watchlist

When I read a story about this topic, I wonder if the story is simply true or if it is designed to sound simple enough for a news byte (mis-spelling intended).

Is someone really looking at a list of people whose email contain a simple list of keywords, or is that list contained in a few hundred lines of a 500,000 line program with a complex parsing algorithm that does the scanning?

I used to believe that latter was typically the case, but I have noticed a trend in our national government. With the renewal of the USA PATRIOT act, the continued use of the no-fly list (classified secret), and the passing of the NDAA. We can see that the federal government seeks to monitor without any accountability, block people from traveling without having to tell them why (ever), and to do so with the power of the military operating within our borders. hmm - if I disappear after I post this will somebody tell my family? ;^)

-Vik

Vik Solem, CISSP, Sr. Applications Risk Consultant Tufts University, Information Security, vik.solem@tufts.edu / 617-627-4326 InfoSec Team: information_security@tufts.edu / 617-627-6070



On May 28, 2012, at 18:54 , Gene Spafford wrote:

> I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring. I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings.
>
>
It would be my hope that I or we, would not be "people of interest" in this regard until we appear on several list. The fact that appliances have been tapped into bottle necked conduits was revealed with the Folsom street AT&T offices in San Francisco with the case of the whistle blower. Also the funneling of all comm traffic recently thru some accidental sites seems, like a created detour more then accident, in my opinion. Eighteen minutes of  detoured .gov and .mil communications an accident, please.
I was just thinking my wife works with international students ($audi's, Chin3s3, and others) and I talk to much threat talk. Can we be on several list? Oh yes ! Kool may have to dig up my Dick Tracy wrist watch.
Well when the Utah data center goes on line, I'll see if I can bring my concerns to them. Will let you know how that goes.

On 5/30/2012 at 1:39 PM, in message <2BDDE8D5-F217-49AB-AD61-BF5A1FBB8895@tufts.edu>, "Solem, Vik P." <Vik.Solem@TUFTS.EDU> wrote:
When I read a story about this topic, I wonder if the story is simply true or if it is designed to sound simple enough for a news byte (mis-spelling intended).

Is someone really looking at a list of people whose email contain a simple list of keywords, or is that list contained in a few hundred lines of a 500,000 line program with a complex parsing algorithm that does the scanning?

I used to believe that latter was typically the case, but I have noticed a trend in our national government.  With the renewal of the USA PATRIOT act, the continued use of the  no-fly list (classified secret), and the passing of the NDAA.  We can see that the federal government seeks to monitor without any accountability, block people from traveling without having to tell them why (ever), and to do so with the power of the military operating within our borders.  hmm - if I disappear after I post this will somebody tell my family? ;^)

-Vik

Vik Solem, CISSP, Sr. Applications Risk Consultant
Tufts University, Information Security, vik.solem@tufts.edu / 617-627-4326
InfoSec Team: information_security@tufts.edu / 617-627-6070



On May 28, 2012, at 18:54 , Gene Spafford wrote:

> I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring.   I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings. 
>
>

No Comment.

 

2.6 Credible Sources for Corroboration

First Tier –

A first tier source is one that does not typically need additional corroboration prior

to release. Sources that construct the first tier platform include major news networks, such as

CNN and Fox; major newspapers, such as USA Today and The Washington Post; and

international news, such as the BBC and The International Herald Tribune. These sources do not

typically need additional corroboration prior to release



Ruth Ginzberg, CISSP, CTPS
Sr. I.T. Procurement Specialist
University of Wisconsin System

rginzberg@uwsa.edu
608-890-3961


From: "William (Bill) Badertscher" <wdc8@GEORGETOWN.EDU>
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:48:24 PM
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS watchlist


Here's a copy of the referenced DHS document. 

Pardon if it's already been sent to the list.






For those of who may not be familiar with said data center, you can read about it here:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

Marty Manjak

ISO

University at Albany

 

The University at Albany will never ask you to reveal your password. Please ignore all such requests.                    

That's in-credible!!   "major news networks, such as CNN and Fox; major newspapers, such as USA Today"  Etc.  Who are these numbskulls?!?

Who would believe a priori anything CNN or Fox "reported?"   I can only suppose they've never heard of AP, the NY Times, ...

(Sorry - I couldn't resist a comment - that is just sooooo weird.)

David

This almost sounds as if a government were an individual entity making the decisions. One of the benefits of our country is that we get a vote in how we progress, who leads us and which issues and values we are willing to compromise in the name of national security, freedom and safety. Its not us vs the government- we make up the government. Where I see the issue is in people viewing issues from a current trend perspective and not viewing the longer term impact; which is much harder to see without historical context and a global perspective. It certainly makes it easier for DHS (and others) to see what the perspectives are of this community as our email conversations are published. http://seclists.org/educause/ David Pirolo On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 19:53 +0000, Manjak, Martin wrote: > And the irony and tragedy of all this is that citizens come to distrust their government and are less likely to cooperate with it. It's not unlike community policing. If the police are viewed with suspicion, they alienate the very people they are supposedly protecting, and make their job that much more difficult for themselves. > > This works both ways. If a government views its citizens with distrust, it will become increasingly alienated from its own people, and see its interests, and prerogatives, as distinct from those of the citizenry. At that point, its primary focus is not on protecting people, but protecting itself from the people. > > Marty Manjak > ISO > University at Albany > > The University at Albany will never ask you to reveal your password. Please ignore all such requests. > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Solem, Vik P. > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:40 PM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS watchlist > > When I read a story about this topic, I wonder if the story is simply true or if it is designed to sound simple enough for a news byte (mis-spelling intended). > > Is someone really looking at a list of people whose email contain a simple list of keywords, or is that list contained in a few hundred lines of a 500,000 line program with a complex parsing algorithm that does the scanning? > > I used to believe that latter was typically the case, but I have noticed a trend in our national government. With the renewal of the USA PATRIOT act, the continued use of the no-fly list (classified secret), and the passing of the NDAA. We can see that the federal government seeks to monitor without any accountability, block people from traveling without having to tell them why (ever), and to do so with the power of the military operating within our borders. hmm - if I disappear after I post this will somebody tell my family? ;^) > > -Vik > > Vik Solem, CISSP, Sr. Applications Risk Consultant Tufts University, Information Security, vik.solem@tufts.edu / 617-627-4326 InfoSec Team: information_security@tufts.edu / 617-627-6070 > > > > On May 28, 2012, at 18:54 , Gene Spafford wrote: > > > I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring. I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings. > > > >
At the risk of turning this into a political discussion that may have been the intent of the framers of our constitution but that was too many elections ago. Who are you going to vote into office that will change anything? Both of the major parties do the same thing. They both push through legislation that makes it easier for agencies like the NSA to run amok. We have given up too much freedom all in the name of safety and security and it is too late to save us from ourselves. Steve -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of David Pirolo Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:03 PM To: SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS watchlist This almost sounds as if a government were an individual entity making the decisions. One of the benefits of our country is that we get a vote in how we progress, who leads us and which issues and values we are willing to compromise in the name of national security, freedom and safety. Its not us vs the government- we make up the government. Where I see the issue is in people viewing issues from a current trend perspective and not viewing the longer term impact; which is much harder to see without historical context and a global perspective. It certainly makes it easier for DHS (and others) to see what the perspectives are of this community as our email conversations are published. http://seclists.org/educause/ David Pirolo On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 19:53 +0000, Manjak, Martin wrote: > And the irony and tragedy of all this is that citizens come to distrust their government and are less likely to cooperate with it. It's not unlike community policing. If the police are viewed with suspicion, they alienate the very people they are supposedly protecting, and make their job that much more difficult for themselves. > > This works both ways. If a government views its citizens with distrust, it will become increasingly alienated from its own people, and see its interests, and prerogatives, as distinct from those of the citizenry. At that point, its primary focus is not on protecting people, but protecting itself from the people. > > Marty Manjak > ISO > University at Albany > > The University at Albany will never ask you to reveal your password. Please ignore all such requests. > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Solem, Vik P. > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:40 PM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS > watchlist > > When I read a story about this topic, I wonder if the story is simply true or if it is designed to sound simple enough for a news byte (mis-spelling intended). > > Is someone really looking at a list of people whose email contain a simple list of keywords, or is that list contained in a few hundred lines of a 500,000 line program with a complex parsing algorithm that does the scanning? > > I used to believe that latter was typically the case, but I have > noticed a trend in our national government. With the renewal of the > USA PATRIOT act, the continued use of the no-fly list (classified > secret), and the passing of the NDAA. We can see that the federal > government seeks to monitor without any accountability, block people > from traveling without having to tell them why (ever), and to do so > with the power of the military operating within our borders. hmm - if > I disappear after I post this will somebody tell my family? ;^) > > -Vik > > Vik Solem, CISSP, Sr. Applications Risk Consultant Tufts University, > Information Security, vik.solem@tufts.edu / 617-627-4326 InfoSec Team: > information_security@tufts.edu / 617-627-6070 > > > > On May 28, 2012, at 18:54 , Gene Spafford wrote: > > > I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring. I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings. > > > >
Hi
 
"At the risk of turning this into a political discussion...
 
Yea, no lets not go that route, please. I have been a lurker member of this list for a few years. My CIO wanted me to ask a question and I had to drop my anonymous status. Come to think of it he didn't appreciate the whole reference to anonymous, different list serve Sir. I have often found good technical advise here, and sometimes its a little mean here, other times its like geek therapy. The DHS and foreign nationals conversation is just therapy.
The AT&T routing was us, the recent hijacking of internet traffic was other countries.
 
Dr McCoy said it best "I ve found that evil usually triumphs...unless good is very, very careful"
 
We should all agree our highest mandate is to be very, very careful.
 
LA

On 5/31/2012 at 7:41 AM, in message <C443986985BB794BA92CB1A458AB14F202DE052DDE@FACCMS7.it.muohio.edu>, "Bradley, Stephen W. Mr." <bradlesw@MUOHIO.EDU> wrote:
At the risk of turning this into a political discussion that may have been the intent of the framers of our constitution but that was too many elections ago.

Who are you going to vote into office that will change anything?  Both of the major parties do the same thing.  They both push through legislation that makes it easier for agencies like the NSA to run amok.

We have given up too much freedom all in the name of safety and security and it is too late to save us from ourselves.

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of David Pirolo
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:03 PM
To: SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS watchlist

This almost sounds as if a government were an individual entity making the decisions.  One of the benefits of our country is that we get a vote in how we progress, who leads us and which issues and values we are willing to compromise in the name of national security, freedom and safety.  Its not us vs the government- we make up the government.  Where I see the issue is in people viewing issues from a current trend perspective and not viewing the longer term impact; which is much harder to see without historical context and a global perspective.

It certainly makes it easier for DHS (and others) to see what the perspectives are of this community as our email conversations are published. http://seclists.org/educause/

David Pirolo

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 19:53 +0000, Manjak, Martin wrote:
> And the irony and tragedy of all this is that citizens come to distrust their government and are less likely to cooperate with it.  It's not unlike community policing. If the police are viewed with suspicion, they alienate the very people they are supposedly protecting, and make their job that much more difficult for themselves.
>
> This works both ways. If a government views its citizens with distrust, it will become increasingly alienated from its own people, and see its interests, and prerogatives, as distinct from those of the citizenry. At that point, its primary focus is not on protecting people, but protecting itself from the people.
>
> Marty Manjak
> ISO
> University at Albany

> The University at Albany will never ask you to reveal your password. Please ignore all such requests.                    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Solem, Vik P.
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:40 PM
> To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Welcome! You're now on the official DHS
> watchlist
>
> When I read a story about this topic, I wonder if the story is simply true or if it is designed to sound simple enough for a news byte (mis-spelling intended).
>
> Is someone really looking at a list of people whose email contain a simple list of keywords, or is that list contained in a few hundred lines of a 500,000 line program with a complex parsing algorithm that does the scanning?
>
> I used to believe that latter was typically the case, but I have
> noticed a trend in our national government.  With the renewal of the
> USA PATRIOT act, the continued use of the  no-fly list (classified
> secret), and the passing of the NDAA.  We can see that the federal
> government seeks to monitor without any accountability, block people
> from traveling without having to tell them why (ever), and to do so
> with the power of the military operating within our borders.  hmm - if
> I disappear after I post this will somebody tell my family? ;^)
>
> -Vik
>
> Vik Solem, CISSP, Sr. Applications Risk Consultant Tufts University,
> Information Security, vik.solem@tufts.edu / 617-627-4326 InfoSec Team:
> information_security@tufts.edu / 617-627-6070
>
>
>
> On May 28, 2012, at 18:54 , Gene Spafford wrote:
>
> > I resent this kind of broadly-based, no-real-reason monitoring.   I suggest we all use some of the words, chosen at random, in our social media postings. 
> >
> >
Close
Close


EDUCAUSE Connect
View dates and locations

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

EDUCAUSE Institute
Leadership/Management Programs
Explore More

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.