Friday, August 23, 2013

How can I tell if my computer's been accessed by someone else, and how do I prevent it?

How can I tell if my computer's been accessed by someone else, and how do I prevent it?

Helping people with computers... one answer at a time.
Internet security is normally about keeping us safe from the internet - but what if the risks and threats are in our home and on our own local network?
How can I tell if my flatmates have accessed or are accessing my computer? We have a BT homehub and we share the connection wirelessly, but I have the Norton firewall on. I don't know if the firewall only protects my computer from the intruders outside our network. I've heard it's easy for other people sharing the same wireless network to sneak into each others' computers. How is it done and how can I prevent it?
•
Let's see, you're worried about outside intruders accessing your system, you're worried about your privacy, and you're worried about your wireless connection.
What you've just described is the internet itself but just on a smaller scale.
It should be no surprise then that many of the concepts that used to protect ourselves from the people we don't know out on the internet would be used to protect ourselves from the people we do know sharing our internet connection.
•
In most cases I don't recommend a software firewall in addition to a hardware firewall such as a router. Normally you can draw the line of trust at the shared connection to the internet that the router provides. Everything inside of that line can be trusted. Everything outside of that line? Not so much.
In this case, however, you don't trust the people that share your internet connection. That's a very valid assumption and often a good one to make.
In a case like this you pretty much have to treat your connection as if your machine were connected directly to and sitting naked on the internet.
In other words, turn on that firewall on your machine. It places the line of trust at your machine's network connection; everything outside of your machine is not trusted. That means it should protect you from everything that might come in from the internet, of course, but also anything attempted by any of the other machines on your local network.
With the firewall on, you're not done. You still need to take all the normal precautions for internet safety and keeping your machine safe.
"Remember: if your machine isn't physically secure then it's not secure."
But there's still more.
Remember: if your machine isn't physically secure then it's not secure. Can your roommates walk up to your machine and access it when you're not around? It's not secure. Can they insert a boot disk and reboot the machine? Then it's not secure. Can they unplug your keyboard and insert an inconspicuous device that might log your keystrokes? Then your machine is not secure.
In terms of security if any of those are true you're at risk. How much of a risk is a determination only you can make, but at least be aware of it.
And then there's the wireless connection. If the access point is "open", meaning that no WEP or WPA password is required to establish a wireless connection, then even with all the security we've talked about so far your wireless communications can be sniffed. That means everything you're doing on the internet could be monitored. With an open Wifi access point it's exactly like being in a coffee house open Wifi hotspot: anyone could be listening in.
And finally, if all that weren't enough, who controls the router? Whoever has access to the router could be using it to monitor your traffic as well. Or worse, depending on the capabilities of the router.
It's all pretty scary, isn't it?
I certainly don't want to make things seem worse than they are. Much of your real risk depends on your roommates technical expertise (or access to others with that expertise), as well as just how much you trust him or her.
And to finally answer your first question: sadly there really isn't a practical way to determine if your computer has been accessed. Prevention is the only pragmatic way to address the risk. Certainly if your computer is modified in some way by malware that can usually be detected by the appropriate scanners, but if someone simply copies or views a document there's no reliable way to tell.
So figure out how much you trust the other people on your network and/or living situation and take action accordingly.
But I'd certainly leave the firewall turned on.
Article C3175 - October 9, 2007 « »
Share this article with your friends:

Thursday, August 22, 2013

U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to world's richest countries - then asks to borrow it back

U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to world's richest countries - then asks to borrow it back

By Daily Mail Reporter

The U.S. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world's richest countries - while at the same time borrowing billions back, according to report seen by Congress.
The Congressional Research Service released the report last month which shows that in 2010 the U.S. handed out a total of $1.4bn to 16 foreign countries that held at least $10bn in Treasury securities.
Four countries in the world's top 10 richest received foreign aid last year with China receiving $27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m.
Barack Obama
Around the world: Barack Obama on the Great Wall of China. Last year China received $27.2m in foreign aid from the U.S.
Mexico also received $316.7m and Egypt $255.7m.
And yet despite the massive outgoings in foreign aid, the receiving countries hold trillions of dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds.
Sen. Tom Coburn
Concerned: Senator Coburn said the policy was 'dangerous'

China is the largest holder with $1.1trillion as of March, according to the Treasury Department.
Brazil held $193.5bn, Russia $127.8bn, India $39.8bn, Mexico $28.1bn and Egypt had $15.3bn.
Foreign aid is earmarked for causes including HIV/AIDs prevention, combating weapons of mass destruction, fighting tuberculosis, and counter-terrorism efforts.
The news has caused grave concern, with Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla, who requested the report seen by Fox News, calling the policy 'dangerous'.
In a written statement Senator Coburn said: 'Borrowing money from countries who receive our aid is dangerous for both the donor and recipient.
 
'If countries can afford to buy our debt, perhaps they can afford to fund assistance programs on their own.

THE TOP 10 COUNTRIES RECEIVING THE MOST AID

Colombia $461.2m
Mexico $316.7m
Egypt $255.7m
Philippines $128.2m
India $126.6m
Russia $71.5m
China $27.2m
Brazil $25m
Thailand $16.75m
Turkey $8.2m
'At the same time, when we borrow from countries we are supposedly helping to develop, we put off hard budget choices here at home.
'The status quo creates co-dependency and financial risk at home and abroad.'
The news arrives as lawmakers in Washington battle over the conditions for increasing the nation's ability to borrow money before defaulting on its obligations.
The government reached its $14.3trillion borrowing limit last month and both parties agree that spending cuts are needed, although Republicans refuse to raise taxes that Democrats insist on.
President Obama has met with both sides over the issue, but no progress has been made. The State Department did not comment.

U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to world's richest countries - then asks to borrow it back

U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to world's richest countries - then asks to borrow it back

By Daily Mail Reporter

The U.S. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world's richest countries - while at the same time borrowing billions back, according to report seen by Congress.
The Congressional Research Service released the report last month which shows that in 2010 the U.S. handed out a total of $1.4bn to 16 foreign countries that held at least $10bn in Treasury securities.
Four countries in the world's top 10 richest received foreign aid last year with China receiving $27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m.
Barack Obama
Around the world: Barack Obama on the Great Wall of China. Last year China received $27.2m in foreign aid from the U.S.
Mexico also received $316.7m and Egypt $255.7m.
And yet despite the massive outgoings in foreign aid, the receiving countries hold trillions of dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds.
Sen. Tom Coburn
Concerned: Senator Coburn said the policy was 'dangerous'

China is the largest holder with $1.1trillion as of March, according to the Treasury Department.
Brazil held $193.5bn, Russia $127.8bn, India $39.8bn, Mexico $28.1bn and Egypt had $15.3bn.
Foreign aid is earmarked for causes including HIV/AIDs prevention, combating weapons of mass destruction, fighting tuberculosis, and counter-terrorism efforts.
The news has caused grave concern, with Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla, who requested the report seen by Fox News, calling the policy 'dangerous'.
In a written statement Senator Coburn said: 'Borrowing money from countries who receive our aid is dangerous for both the donor and recipient.
 
'If countries can afford to buy our debt, perhaps they can afford to fund assistance programs on their own.

THE TOP 10 COUNTRIES RECEIVING THE MOST AID

Colombia $461.2m
Mexico $316.7m
Egypt $255.7m
Philippines $128.2m
India $126.6m
Russia $71.5m
China $27.2m
Brazil $25m
Thailand $16.75m
Turkey $8.2m
'At the same time, when we borrow from countries we are supposedly helping to develop, we put off hard budget choices here at home.
'The status quo creates co-dependency and financial risk at home and abroad.'
The news arrives as lawmakers in Washington battle over the conditions for increasing the nation's ability to borrow money before defaulting on its obligations.
The government reached its $14.3trillion borrowing limit last month and both parties agree that spending cuts are needed, although Republicans refuse to raise taxes that Democrats insist on.
President Obama has met with both sides over the issue, but no progress has been made. The State Department did not comment.

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets


WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

HMS Vanguard is Britain's lead Trident-armed submarine. The US, under a nuclear deal, has agreed to give the Kremlin the serial numbers of the missiles it gives Britain  Photo: TAM MACDONALD
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.
• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.
• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”
While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

PRESS RELEASE: NV State AFL-CIO Calls on Congress, Obama to Fix the Affordable Care Act

PRESS RELEASE: NV State AFL-CIO Calls on Congress, Obama to Fix the Affordable Care Act

August 21, 2013

NV State AFL-CIO Calls on Congress, Obama to Fix the Affordable Care Act
Resolution cites unintended consequences that harm current health plans
LAS VEGAS, NV - Today, the Nevada State AFL-CIO unanimously passed a resolution at its 57th Annual Constitutional Convention urging Congress and the Obama Administration to make regulatory changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in order to protect the current health plans managed by Taft-Hartley laws. As it is currently written, the ACA will have serious negative consequences on the collectively bargained healthcare of families all over the country.
"Our members fight hard every day to put food on the table and provide for their families, and we must fight just as hard to ensure that their benefits are protected for years to come," said Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Nevada State AFL-CIO. "This resoltuion shows that all of our labor members across the board are committed to making sure that any changes to our nation's health care system are done so in the best interest of working people, and do not negatively impact their way of life."
The resolution clearly explains that union members are merely seeking to keep the health care plans they currently have. President Obama and Congress promised union members that they would be able to keep their current health plans - but that promise is now under threat due to how the ACA is being implimented.
"We simply want to keep the health plans we currently have - nothing more or less," said Geoconda Arguello-Kline, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 226. "We certainly aren't looking for upgrades or special treatment - merely to keep the gains we have worked so hard to attain over the decades."
The resolution - one of the first of its kind in the country - goes on to outline the unintended consequences of the ACA including threatening the 40 hour work week, higher taxes on less coverage, and the potential disappearance of Taft-Hartley plans, which have been the bedrock of labor-management relations since 1947. To find out more about Taft-Hartley health care plans, you can visit www.nccmp.org.
In addition to today's resolution, a number of union and non-union organizations have increasingly been expressing similar exasperation with the slow pace of the Administration to fix aspects of the ACA that will allow the system to work in the interests of all Americans. Recently, union leaders from across the country issued a letter to Congressional leadership asking for a fix to the same issues. The resolution passed by the state federation shows a growing push from within the labor movement for Congress to consider the severity of the issue.

###

Radiation From Japan Is Already Killing North Americans

| June 25, 2013 | 43 Comments
Holy Fukushima – Radiation From Japan Is Already Killing North Americans
 5595 4337 70Reddit92



(Jeromie Williams)  If you live on the west coast of Canada or the United States, you’re pretty much already screwed at this point thanks to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011.
Radiation levels are already increasing in the food and water, babies born with thyroid issues linked to radiation are rising quickly and governments in Canada and the United States are raising the “acceptable levels” of certain toxic substances in the food being shipped in from Japan.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is happening and it’s happening right now.
The fancy little picture at the top of the article isn’t showing you the flow of happy fun time thoughts from Japan back in March of 2012, it’s showing you the flow of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant after the devastating earthquake and tsunami of 2011.  Yes, that sharp pain you just felt in your chest is the sudden realization that the image shows the radiation reaching almost past Hawaii more than a year ago.
Do the math – If that radiation screamed across the Pacific Ocean that far in one year, just how far do you think it has gotten since then?  Look at what World Truth TV is saying and then you decide.
Samples of milk taken across the United States have shown radiation at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums.  The reason that milk is so significant is that it is representative of the entire food supply.  According to an article published on Natural News, “Cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows’ milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.”
The  Food and Drug  Administration and the Environmental Deception Protection Agency, instead of refusing to prohibit the sale of tainted foods and mandatory testing of foods produced and harvested from the Pacific Coast, have simply raised the “acceptable levels”  of radioactive material in foods.
If that doesn’t scare the ever-living crap out of you, then take a look at the list of foods you are now supposed to be wary of, you know, for only the next 30,000 years.

How can we protect ourselves? First, be aware of what items are likely to be highly tainted.
1.)  SEAFOOD:  Question the origin of ALL seafood.  Fish and crustaceans from the Pacific Ocean should all be considered to be poisoned with radiation.
2.)  WATER:  The rainfall and snowfall are all radiated.  Do not drink any water that has not been filtered.   The tap water that flows from your faucet has NOT been treated to rid it of radioactive particles. A recent report from the NY Times stated, “A rooftop water monitoring program managed by UC Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering detected substantial spikes in rain-borne iodine-131 during torrential downpours …
3.) DAIRY PRODUCTS:  Milk and milk products from the West Coast states currently have the highest levels of radiation in North America.
4.)  PRODUCE:  Leafy Vegetables, Wines, Tomatoes, Strawberries….all produce from California or any other West Coast State are also likely to be tainted.
5.)  MEAT:  If an animal eats any leafy vegetable all along the West Coast, that animal has consumed radiation, and is poisoned.  This is any animal from cows, pigs, goats, sheep to wild deer and other game.
If you eat the above foods from areas with high radiation levels, you are eating radiation and feeding it to your children. Slowly the radiation levels within your body will build up.  This is PERMANENT.
Infant mortality rates across the United States have increased by more than 35% since the nuclear disaster, according to a court statement by Dr. Sherman with independent scientist Leuren Moret, MA, PhD.  A study published in The International Journal of Medicine indicates that more than 20,000 deaths right here in North America can be directly attributed to the release of radioactive material from Fukushima.
Radioactive isotopes of the type released from Fukushima have a half-life of 30,000 years.  This means that we must permanently change the way we prepare our food.
  • Wash your food with soap and rinse it in filtered water. 
  • Be aware of the origins of your vegetables, fish, game and seafood.
  • Keep abreast of radiation levels to help monitor where your food is acquired.
  • Use only filtered water for drinking, cooking and ice.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but that one way trip to colonize Mars is looking pretty damn attractiveright now.
- See more at: http://govtslaves.info/radiation-from-japan-is-already-killing-north-americans/#sthash.gOhbIFcs.dpuf

Liberty Amendments: Congressional Term Limits

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post lamenting the need for a strong leader, a visionary, a man of conviction to help us break the chains of tyranny that are enslaving us, a rebel who will stand up to the establishment and restore the principles of freedom on which our nation was founded. I think we have found one such man in Mark Levin—though I’m sure we need many such men to push back the despotic tide that is threatening to drown us all.
Like the prophet Ezra turning his people back to the law of God after their exile in Babylon, Levin is calling Americans back to their law, to their founding principles—to the Constitution. He’s doing it through his book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.
My purpose in this post is not to debate the feasibility of state conventions in amending the Constitution -- Mainly because one would need to read Levin’s book to grasp how this can be done. If you would like to discuss the constitutional process itself, I point you to Ricochet member Ole Summer’s post on The Liberty Amendments.
After reading the book, I do think Levin’s plan is possible (of course it is—the Founders wouldn’t have included it in the Constitution if they thought it weren’t possible!), but, as he says, it won’t happen overnight. This is not a plan for those addicted to instant gratification or quick fixes. This is a battle that will take years, but it is a beginning. It is a vision.
What I would like to do through a series of posts is discuss each amendment Levin has proposed -- amendments designed to turn America back to the Constitution. This might seem strange—amending the Constitution to save it—but this is exactly the gift given to the American people by our founders when politicians have become too tyrannical to fix the government themselves.
The first amendment Levin has proposed is establishing term limits for members of Congress:


SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.
SECTION 2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.
According to Levin, “There is nothing wrong with keeping a good public servant in office for as long as the official and we, the voters, want him there. New does not necessarily mean better, and often it can mean worse.” The problem is that in reality too often unexpected consequences prevail.
America has never been a pure democracy and majoritarianism has always been as much feared as monarchism. Moreover, our supposedly broad parameters of “choice” at the ballot box have actually caused a dramatic narrowing of electoral options for voters. Putting aside the media histrionics over “divided” government and the “dysfunctional” relationships between the two houses of Congress, these institutions are populated by a class of elected officials who jealously covet the power of public office.
 In 2010, 85 percent of incumbents from both parties were reelected—397 members of the House ran for reelection and 339 won. The Senate’s reelection rate was 84 percent.

Ronald Rotunda, Chapman University law professor and constitutional expert, made the point a few years ago that “turnover in the House of Lords has been greater than the turnover in the House of Representatives. There was even more turnover in the membership of the Soviet Politburo.”
As Levin says, “It is apparent that in Washington and most political capitals TIME in office = POWER.”

An important antidote is congressional term limits, which slowly displaces a self-perpetuating ruling class populated by professional politicians—which is increasingly authoritarian in its approach to governance—with a legislative body whose members are, in fact, more representative of the people, for they are rotated in and out of Congress over a generally shorter and defined period of time.
What do you think of this particular amendment in helping to reduce the power of the federal government and putting it back in the hands of the people?

Column: Mark Levin: A Modern-Day Constitutional Prophet


August 22, 2013

Column: Mark Levin: A Modern-Day Constitutional Prophet

Printer Friendly
When Mark Levin decided to write his book "The Liberty Amendments" to advocate a convention to propose a series of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, he may not have realized how quickly and deeply his profound idea would resonate. But throughout the nation, people are inclining their ears.

The first obstacle Levin faced was the widespread misconception that he is calling for a constitutional convention that could be hijacked by enemies of our founding principles and converted into a forum to hammer the final nails into our constitutional republic by fundamentally and radically changing our founding document.

In fact, Levin's proposal couldn't be more at odds with that misperception. He is, first and foremost, a constitutionalist. His goal is neither to eradicate nor to substantially change the Framers' blueprint for government. It's to restore it with specific, defined amendments intended to re-establish the proper balance between the power of the government and the liberty of its citizens, with due emphasis on the latter.

Levin is not arrogantly presuming to improve on the ineffable work of the Framers in crafting "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man" but humbly calling on his fellow patriots to recognize that we have strayed from the principles they enshrined in the Constitution and join him in his effort to advance the necessary correctives.

The Framers didn't meet in Philadelphia in the 18th century with the burning desire to pass super-legislation to codify an ideological political agenda to establish fundamental rights in health care or education, and they certainly didn't want to guarantee, by law, certain economic outcomes.
They met ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation and ended up scrapping it entirely and replacing it with our Constitution.

They were determined to design a system of government that would maximize individual liberties. That would require establishing a government strong enough to protect citizens from domestic and foreign threats but no stronger than that, for they knew that historically, unchecked, tyrannical governments had been the enemies of freedom.

Their challenge was to find that optimal balance between the power of government and individual liberties, so they created a system that divides and diffuses power between the national and state governments (through a system of federalism) and between coequal, competing branches of the federal government (the separation of powers), which hold one another in check.

It was not the affirmative granting of rights that would establish liberties -- many meaningless constitutions have paid lip service to that endeavor -- but the imposition of defined, specific and enforceable limitations on the federal government.

We must not lose sight of the fact that their overarching concern was liberty, an idea that gets little attention today -- apart from conservatives, constitutionalists and tea party patriots.

What constitutionalists understand is that upholding the integrity of the Constitution and its designed system of limited government is essential to preserving our liberties, and usurpations of power by all three branches of government and by an out-of-control, unaccountable administrative bureaucracy have imperiled them. Constitutionalists abhor abuses of power by any and all branches, irrespective of the substantive political agenda being served by such usurpations.

When King Josiah found a copy of the Jewish law in the Temple, which was being restored in 621 B.C., he was mortified by the extent to which the nation had departed from its teachings. He called for rededication to the law and a revival of its presence in the lives of the people.

Mark Levin is a modern-day constitutional prophet whose purpose is not to revamp the Constitution. It is to revive it and refurbish it -- to restore the cracks in its foundation caused by lawless officials through the years who were more interested in guaranteeing outcomes than they were liberty.

The goal of every one of Mark's proposed amendments is to restore the delicate balances the Framers originally designed; it is to restate and revivify the system of limited government they established by replacing bricks in specific places in our constitutional foundation -- bricks that statists have forcibly dislodged over time.

The sagacious and prescient Framers knew that no matter how well they crafted the Constitution, no matter what kind of protections it included, it would always be vulnerable to the abuses of lawless men who simply refuse to honor its provisions. They also understood that experience would enlighten their successors as to possible pitfalls and weaknesses in the framework that could be breached by such scofflaws over time, so they provided specific methods for amending the Constitution to shore up those trouble spots -- always keeping in mind that preserving liberty was the greatest imperative.

Today's statists have no regard for the Constitution or rule of law and have severely weakened it in many places, and as a result, our liberty, our prosperity and our very nation are in decline and in grave jeopardy.

Mark Levin is calling on us to take corrective steps -- through a process anticipated and expressly sanctioned by the Framers, no less -- to restore our system and reinvigorate our liberties. Let's pray his effort becomes an inexorable movement that sweeps the nation like the Great Awakening.
Posted by David Limbaugh at August 22, 2013 03:10 PM