Vista Tutorial - Re: Microsoft monitors your internet activity via Vista/IE7

"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message
news:O8RYhuP3HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> There must be a ton of "expert consulting" going on. When Mark Minasi
> toured NSA, CIA, and all the stupid alphabet agencies, they weren't even
> backing up their servers off site. The morons were putting their backup
> servers literally on top of their main servers. It's a story Minasi tells
> often.
>
> Stories of leaked data are plentiful, so the lol "expert" consulting has
> had little impact.
>
> None of your points have anything to do with MSFT's pussying out and
> allowing their searches to be turned over to the government. No wonder
> despite Dr.Gary Flake's addition to MSFT with a huge salary and a tilte
> MSN so called "Windows Live" search is so far behind Google in use and
> ability that it's barely on the radar.
>
> No one is "jumping up and down like a loon." I've just stated facts that
> are easily verified and I've verified all of them.
>
> If the NSA has been involved in the development of Vista, no wonder it's
> so easily hacked and so many security patches have to be issued for it
> every "Black Tuesday" of the month that are beginning again to screw up
> the functionality of Vista month after month. If MSFT had "you know" (is
> that your synonym for the Valley Girl California use of "like" all the
> time) "insight into the tricks hackers use" why is Vista so easily hacked
> and are so many security patches necessary for the endless security flaws
> in Vista--and again patches with exponential reports that they are
> screwing up Vista once applied?
>
> The more the NSA and other agencies spy, the more it does nothing to deter
> terrorrists who can easily work around whatever is done. 911 happened
> largely because of the incompetence of Bush retreating to Texas and
> ignoring clear warnings without translating most of the information that
> would have prevented it until 912 and after. It's no accident that the
> D.C. Circuit suppressed the law suit filed by
> Sibel Edmonds to expose this:
>
> http://www.justacitizen.com/
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
>
> FRANK RICH: Shuffling Off to Crawford, 2007 Edition
> NYT Sunday 8/12/07
>
> THE cases of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were ugly enough. So surely
> someone in the White House might have the good taste to draw the line at
> exploiting the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. But
> nothing is out of bounds for a government that puts the darkest arts of
> politics and public relations above even the exigencies of war.
>
> As Jane Mayer told the story in last week's New Yorker, Mariane Pearl was
> called by Alberto Gonzales with some good news in March: the Justice
> Department was releasing a transcript in which the long-incarcerated Qaeda
> thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of her husband. But
> there was something off about Mr. Gonzales's news. It was almost four
> years old.
>
> Condoleezza Rice had called Ms. Pearl to tell her in confidence about the
> very same confession back in 2003; it was also reported that year in The
> Journal and elsewhere. What's more, the confession was suspect; another
> terrorist had been convicted in the Pearl case in Pakistan in 2002. There
> is no known corroborating evidence that Mohammed, the 9/11 ringleader who
> has taken credit for many horrific crimes while in American custody, was
> responsible for this particular murder. None of his claims, particularly
> those possibly coerced by torture, can be taken as gospel solely on our
> truth-challenged attorney general's say-so.
>
> Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it. And this one wasn't
> subtle. Mr. Gonzales released the Mohammed transcript just as the latest
> Justice Department scandal was catching fire, with newly disclosed e-mail
> exchanges revealing the extent of White House collaboration in the United
> States attorney firings. Had the attorney general succeeded in enlisting
> Daniel Pearl's widow as a player in his stunt, it might have diverted
> attention from a fracas then engulfing President Bush on his Latin
> American tour.
>
> Though he failed this time, Mr. Gonzales's P.R. manipulation of the war on
> terror hasn't always been so fruitless. To upstage increasingly
> contentious Congressional restlessness about Iraq in 2006, he put on a
> widely viewed show to announce an alleged plot by men in Miami to blow up
> the Sears Tower in Chicago and conduct a "full ground war." He said at the
> time the men "swore allegiance to Al Qaeda" but, funnily enough, last week
> this case was conspicuously missing from a long new White House "fact
> sheet" listing all the terrorist plots it had foiled.
>
> The Gonzales antics are, of course, in the tradition of an administration
> with a genius for stirring up terror nightmares at politically opportune
> times, like just before the Democratic convention in 2004. The Sears Tower
> scenario came right out of the playbook of his predecessor, John Ashcroft.
> In 2002, Mr. Ashcroft waited a full month to announce the Chicago arrest
> of the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla - suddenly commandeering TV cameras in
> the middle of a trip to Moscow so that this tardy "news" could drown out
> the damning pre-9/11 revelations from the F.B.I. whistleblower Coleen
> Rowley. Since then, the dirty bomb in the Padilla case has evaporated much
> like Mr. Gonzales's Sears Tower extravaganza.
>
> Now that the administration is winding down and the Qaeda threat is at its
> scariest since 2001, one might hope that such stunts would cease. Indeed,
> two of the White House's most accomplished artificial-reality Imagineers
> both left their jobs last month: Scott Sforza, the former ABC News
> producer who polished up the "Mission Accomplished" spectacle, and Peter
> Feaver, the academic specialist in wartime public opinion who helped
> conceive the 35-page National Security Council document that Mr. Bush
> unveiled as his Iraq "Plan for Victory" in November 2005.
>
> Mr. Feaver's document used the word victory six times in its table of
> contents alone, and was introduced by a speech at the Naval Academy in
> which Mr. Bush invoked "victory" 15 times while standing on a set bedecked
> with "Plan for Victory" signage. Alas, it turned out that victory could
> not be achieved merely by Orwellian incantation, so the plan was scrapped
> only 13 months later for the "surge." But while Mr. Feaver and his doomed
> effort to substitute propaganda for action may now be gone, the White
> House's public relations strategies for the war, far from waning, are
> again gathering steam, to America's peril.
>
> This came into sharp focus last weekend, when our military disclosed, very
> quietly and with a suspicious lack of accompanying White House fanfare,
> that it had killed a major terror culprit in Iraq, Haythem Sabah al-Badri.
> Never heard of him? Usually this administration oversells every death of a
> terrorist leader. It underplayed Badri's demise for a reason. The fine
> print would further expose the fictional new story line that has been
> concocted to rebrand and resell the Iraq war as a battle against Osama bin
> Laden's Al Qaeda - or, as Mr. Bush now puts it, "the very same folks that
> attacked us on September the 11th."
>
> To understand how, revisit the president's trial run of this new
> narrative, when he announced the surge in January. Mr. Bush had to explain
> why his previous "Plan for Victory" had gone belly up so quickly, so he
> came up with a new premise that absolved him of blame. In his prime-time
> speech, the president implied that all had been on track in Iraq after the
> country's December 2005 elections until Feb. 22, 2006, when one of the
> holiest Shiite shrines, the gold-domed mosque in Samarra, was blown up. In
> this revisionist history, that single terrorist act set off the outbreak
> of sectarian violence in Iraq now requiring the surge.
>
> This narrative was false. Shiite death squads had been attacking Sunnis
> for more than a year before the Samarra bombing. The mosque attack was not
> a turning point. It was merely a confirmation of the Iraqi civil war that
> Mr. Bush refuses to acknowledge because American voters don't want their
> troops in the middle of one.
>
>But that wasn't the only new plot point that the president advanced in his
>surge speech. With no proof, Mr. Bush directly attributed the newly
>all-important Samarra bombing to "Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni
>insurgents," cementing a rhetorical sleight of hand he had started
>sketching out during the midterm election season.
>
> In fact, no one has taken credit for the mosque bombing to this day. But
> Iraqi government officials fingered Badri as the culprit. (Some local
> officials told The Washington Post after the bombing that Iraqi security
> forces were themselves responsible.) Since Badri is a leader of a tiny
> insurgent cell reportedly affiliated with what the president calls "Al
> Qaeda in Iraq," Mr. Bush had the last synthetic piece he needed to
> complete his newest work of fiction: 1) All was hunky-dory with his plan
> for victory until the mosque was bombed. 2) "Al Qaeda in Iraq" bombed the
> mosque. 3) Ipso facto, America must escalate the war to defeat "Al Qaeda
> in Iraq," those "very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th."
>
> As a growing chorus of critics reiterates, "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not those
> very same folks. It did not exist on 9/11 but was a product of the Iraq
> war and accounts for only a small fraction of the Sunni insurgency. It is
> not to be confused with the resurgent bin Laden network we've been warned
> about in the latest National Intelligence Estimate. But this factual issue
> hasn't deterred Mr. Bush. He has merely stepped up his bogus conflation of
> the two Qaedas by emphasizing all the "foreign leaders" of "Al Qaeda in
> Iraq," because that might allow him to imply they are bin Laden
> emissaries. In a speech in Charleston, S.C., on July 24, he listed a
> Syrian, an Egyptian, a Tunisian, a Saudi and a Turk.
>
> Against the backdrop of this stepped-up propaganda blitz, Badri's death
> nine days later was an inconvenient reminder of the hole in the official
> White House narrative. Mr. Bush couldn't do his usual victory jig over
> Badri's demise because there's no way to pass off Badri as a link to bin
> Laden. He was born in Samarra and was a member of Saddam's Special
> Republican Guard.
>
> If Badri was responsible for the mosque bombing that has caused all our
> woes in Iraq and forced us to stay there, then the president's story line
> falls apart. Far from having any connection to bin Laden's Qaeda, the
> Samarra bombing was instead another manifestation of the Iraqi civil war
> that Mr. Bush denies. No wonder the same White House "fact sheet" that
> left out Mr. Gonzales's foiled Sears Tower plot and, for that matter, Jose
> Padilla, also omitted Badri's name from its list of captured and killed
> "Senior Al Qaeda Leaders." Surely it was a coincidence that this latest
> statement of official Bush administration amnesia was released on Aug. 6,
> the sixth anniversary of the President's Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden
> Determined to Strike in U.S."
>
> And so the president, firm in his resolve against "Al Qaeda in Iraq,"
> heads toward another August break in Crawford while Al Qaeda in Pakistan
> and Afghanistan remains determined to strike in America. No one can doubt
> Mr. Bush's triumph in the P.R. war: There are more American troops than
> ever mired in Iraq, sent there by a fresh round of White House fictions.
> And the real war? The enemy that did attack us six years ago, sad to say,
> is likely to persist in its nasty habit of operating in the reality-based
> world that our president disdains.
>
> CH
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:110tb3tugcdtnc8rdhvkeq3rtnc11c6ch6@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:33:48 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <q8tsb3lpr50enehacv4tp2531inm3vg4j5@4ax.com>,
>>> Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:43:43 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <O2zOUaI3HHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
>>>> > "Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I think Mike is saying he's stupid and doing that eloquently. Do you
>>>> >> mind
>>>> >> taking a pic of this switch and posting it because most of us
>>>> >> familiar
>>>> >> with
>>>> >> IE and Vista don't think it exists. What I said about your
>>>> >> government and
>>>> >> the UK's government is well known and in the public domain. MSFT
>>>> >> monitors
>>>> >> your Live searches and turns them over to the government for 18
>>>> >> months to
>>>> >> two years. But they aren't monitoring your internet activity.
>>>> >> However the
>>>> >> scumbag Bush government and in your case the Rt. Hon Gordon Brown
>>>> >> are
>>>> >> monitoring your internet surfing and wiretaping your email via your
>>>> >> ISP. I
>>>> >> hope this is clear to you.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yes, of course. It's also well known and in the public domain that
>>>> >McDonald's reports your hamburger activity.
>>>>
>>>> Well before you start jumping up and down like a loon, maybe you will
>>>> sober up if you knew that Microsoft has CONFIRMED it allowed the super
>>>> secret National Security Agency (NSA) to work on the development of
>>>> Vista.
>>>>
>>>> Right, the very same agency that the idiot Bush ordered to spy on who
>>>> knows how many innocent American citizens without benefit of search
>>>> warrant or court supervision crawled into bed with Microsoft. Why?
>>>>
>>>> "For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the
>>>> help of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on
>>>> foreign officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the
>>>> Bush administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it
>>>> has helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new
>>>> operating system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from
>>>> worms, Trojan horses and other insidious computer attackers."
>>>
>>>Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe they had, you know, some insight
>>>into what tricks and techniques hackers are using. It's called expert
>>>consulting.
>>
>> You truly are a world class idiot. If the NSA had any "experts", 9-11
>> would have never happened.
>>
>> Fact: While the NSA routinely listened to terrorist "traffic" on
>> telephone and Internet networks the dummies didn't think it was
>> important to hire enough interpreters to translate WHAT they heard.
>>
>
>
Go and peddle your mad ideas on a political list, not here.



--
Ian

With patience there is always a way.

Please Reply to Newsgroup so all can read.
Requests for assistance by email can not and will be deleted.