Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   NSA chief hints at ISP and email wiretapping. If you haven't curled up into a ball and renounced your religion because there is no god yet, now may be a good time   (news.cnet.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, ISP, NSA, Julian Sanchez, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Patriot Act, Fort Meade, warrantless wiretapping, Internet Protocol  
•       •       •

7372 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jun 2013 at 9:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



386 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-13 10:51:53 AM  

ronaprhys: unlikely: Again, we've known this since like the 90s... why is it only just NOW a big deal?

It was a big deal back then, too.  You just weren't paying attention.


Was it a big deal back then? It took recent leaks from a government contractor to expose the extent of the government's reach into our personal lives. The ACLU is now suing the government over these programs. If they knew back in the '90s wouldn't they have sued then, or during the Bush administration?

For some reason, people refuse to acknowledge that much of this information is new to most Americans. Maybe what they're doing now has been done for years but there is new information coming out. If we're going to deal with it and define government's limits people are going to stop being so defensive when it comes to the current president.
 
2013-06-13 10:52:13 AM  

Agent 84: Skleenar's Natalie Portman fanpage


Wow.  1267 hits in the last half hour.  Thanks!

/I love how when I try to make a point about accuracy, suddenly I am a apologist for the police state.  Whatever.
 
2013-06-13 10:52:54 AM  
"Why would you care, unless you have something to hide?"

It's weird how everyone is fine with saying this about "terrorists" and "criminals" (who are unknown and typically aren't given that label until they committed a crime/terrorism or were caught), but those same people get completely offended when theirprivacy is invaded, because  they are innocent.

Kind of like how gun owners all assume they are a "responsible, law abiding" gun owner, so any laws regulating what they do with their guns is inherently wrong.

/the point is, bad public policy is bad - whether it's demolishing civil liberties in the interest of "fighting terrorism," or blindly opposing any reasonable gun regulations because they affect "criminals" as well as "law abiding" gun owners.
 
2013-06-13 10:53:19 AM  

netweavr: This is like Gay Rights. The older generation is upset and despondent that they exist. The younger generation doesn't care.

The older generation will die off and this "scandal" will disappear.


Really?

The government spying on it's own people is, like, totally cool?
 
2013-06-13 10:53:55 AM  

sendtodave: it's


its

/dammitsomuch
 
2013-06-13 10:54:02 AM  

sendtodave: YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

We live in public!   Or some bullshiat like that,

"If I'm going to use my telescreen, I have to assume that Big Brother is watching me.   No biggie, really."


Sounds like new xbox time. Don't ever roll a joint in your living room, MS will snitch you.
 
2013-06-13 10:54:58 AM  
Frankentots
I suspect that unless those demands come hand in hand with large sums of campaign contributions and kickbacks, they're going to be met with smiles, nods, and not an ounce of change.

If that's true, then our democratic republic is running in "limp mode" and about to peter out completely unless massive retooling takes place. It's all the more reason we should be outraged at, and fearful of, awarding more power than absolutely necessary to the current set of officials who "represent" us.
 
2013-06-13 10:55:12 AM  

Cletus C.: Was it a big deal back then? It took recent leaks from a government contractor to expose the extent of the government's reach into our personal lives. The ACLU is now suing the government over these programs. If they knew back in the '90s wouldn't they have sued then, or during the Bush administration?


It was a big deal to pretty much everyone I knew.  FWIW.
 
2013-06-13 10:55:20 AM  
Good luck NSA

i86.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-13 10:55:30 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Well, not to take the bait, but how does that enable them to stop or disrupt attacks?


The theory is that using metadata, you can establish patterns that are useful in identifying suspicious persons or activity.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-fi nd -paul-revere/

And I believe that it is useful for this sort of thing.

However, it would also be useful in finding just about any sort of pattern you find interesting, not just ones that are related to national security (i.e. politcal leanings, affairs, etc.).

It's not without the potential for abuse.  What it is, however, is a streamlined way to find the data you really want without having to collect all of it and read through it.
 
2013-06-13 10:56:01 AM  

ows: can I still google myself?


You dirty boy, you.
 
2013-06-13 10:56:05 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The existence of God is not negated by the fact that we have a tyrannical government. When Jesus walked the earth, Rome was pretty tyrannical.


the government is your God.  Or wants to be.
 
2013-06-13 10:56:08 AM  

Cletus C.: ronaprhys: unlikely: Again, we've known this since like the 90s... why is it only just NOW a big deal?

It was a big deal back then, too.  You just weren't paying attention.

Was it a big deal back then? It took recent leaks from a government contractor to expose the extent of the government's reach into our personal lives. The ACLU is now suing the government over these programs. If they knew back in the '90s wouldn't they have sued then, or during the Bush administration?

For some reason, people refuse to acknowledge that much of this information is new to most Americans. Maybe what they're doing now has been done for years but there is new information coming out. If we're going to deal with it and define government's limits people are going to stop being so defensive when it comes to the current president.


Two points to that:
 - There was lots of furor of Bush's activities.  Mostly it was shouted down because terrorism and like such as.  The Patriot Act got lots and lots of (well-deserved) bad press.
- This current stuff seems to be an expansion of what was going on under Bush, which is much more intrusive and actually worse, which means it's getting ever more bad press.
 
2013-06-13 10:56:11 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Skleenar: Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

Well, not to take the bait, but how does that enable them to stop or disrupt attacks?


I imagine you take a peek at who Muhammed-Al-Muhammed-Al-Muhammed Ben Bezir talks to, analyze the com patterns, and then you've got a likely group. get warrants based on this analysis and do ACTUAL wiretapping...and prevent bombing. Still starts with a real target though, and metadata won't help you get that...
 
2013-06-13 10:56:42 AM  

oldfarthenry: You people actually expected privacy when using electronic versions of postcards, telegrams & billboards? Duh!


Now, THAT's the spirit!

Now - show us you mean it; post your email address and password, so we can all check out your postcards, telgrams and billboards. That's a good American...
 
2013-06-13 10:57:23 AM  

neversubmit: doglover: I've just always assumed the Feds read ALL my emails.

I've just always assumed I'm such a unimportant little bug no one has bothered to notice me let alone step on me. If I'm wrong about the first how long till I get the second?


Ah.  So you're Chinese.

Security through obscurity.
 
2013-06-13 10:58:38 AM  
from the article from yesterday:

The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it myopically views privacy as a form of secrecy. In contrast, understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures. To return to my discussion of literary metaphors, the problems are not just Orwellian but Kafkaesque. Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. In The Trial, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system's use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are bureaucratic ones-indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency and accountability.

One such harm, for example, which I call aggregation, emerges from the fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data. When combined, the information becomes much more telling. By joining pieces of information we might not take pains to guard, the government can glean information about us that we might indeed wish to conceal. For example, suppose you bought a book about cancer. This purchase isn't very revealing on its own, for it indicates just an interest in the disease. Suppose you bought a wig. The purchase of a wig, by itself, could be for a number of reasons. But combine those two pieces of information, and now the inference can be made that you have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy. That might be a fact you wouldn't mind sharing, but you'd certainly want to have the choice.

Yet another problem with government gathering and use of personal data is distortion. For example, suppose government officials learn that a person has bought a number of books on how to manufacture methamphetamine. That information makes them suspect that he's building a meth lab. What is missing from the records is the full story: The person is writing a novel about a character who makes meth. When he bought the books, he didn't consider how suspicious the purchase might appear to government officials, and his records didn't reveal the reason for the purchases. Should he have to worry about government scrutiny of all his purchases and actions? Should he have to be concerned that he'll wind up on a suspicious-persons list? Even if he isn't doing anything wrong, he may want to keep his records away from government officials who might make faulty inferences from them. He might not want to have to worry about how everything he does will be perceived by officials nervously monitoring for criminal activity. He might not want to have a computer flag him as suspicious because he has an unusual pattern of behavior.

"My life's an open book," people might say. "I've got nothing to hide." But now the government has large dossiers of everyone's activities, interests, reading habits, finances, and health. What if the government leaks the information to the public? What if the government mistakenly determines that based on your pattern of activities, you're likely to engage in a criminal act? What if it denies you the right to fly? What if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd-even if you've done nothing wrong-and freezes your accounts? What if the government doesn't protect your information with adequate security, and an identity thief obtains it and uses it to defraud you? Even if you have nothing to hide, the government can cause you a lot of harm.

"But the government doesn't want to hurt me," some might argue. In many cases, that's true, but the government can also harm people inadvertently, due to errors or carelessness.
 
2013-06-13 10:58:40 AM  

netweavr: This is like Gay Rights. The older generation is upset and despondent that they exist. The younger generation doesn't care.

The older generation will die off and this "scandal" will disappear.


This lol
 
2013-06-13 10:59:12 AM  

Skleenar: Agent 84: Skleenar's Natalie Portman fanpage

Wow.  1267 hits in the last half hour.  Thanks!

/I love how when I try to make a point about accuracy, suddenly I am a apologist for the police state.  Whatever.


Hey! My plates kept 9/11 from being worse. I don't believe Agent 84 was being serious. Elvis pfft how old do you think I am?
 
2013-06-13 10:59:24 AM  

Slappajo: the government is your God.  Or wants to be.


Close.

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-06-13 10:59:37 AM  

Skleenar: Agent 84: Skleenar's Natalie Portman fanpage

Wow.  1267 hits in the last half hour.  Thanks!

/I love how when I try to make a point about accuracy, suddenly I am a apologist for the police state.  Whatever.


Do you think the government's surveillance activities should go any further than what they've stated?
 
2013-06-13 10:59:39 AM  
So the question is:

What shall we do about it?

-TOR?
-Selenography?
-PGP?
 
2013-06-13 10:59:43 AM  
This isn't a judgement statement as to whether or not I think the level of surveillance is appropriate, but from a practical standpoint, if any data collection is going to occur I would rather it be a lot.  At some point, you become anonymous again due to the sheer amount of data. You have to be a whole lot of standard deviations away from the mean before you are going to be the least bit noticeable.  Does Google "know" everything there possibly is to know about me?  Probably, but if I stand out over child molesters, would be terrorists and Subby's porn searches, I probably have it coming to me.
 
2013-06-13 10:59:46 AM  

ronaprhys: unlikely: Again, we've known this since like the 90s... why is it only just NOW a big deal?

It was a big deal back then, too.  You just weren't paying attention.


It was enough of a big deal back then that most of us started using PGP on our e-mails. But in the naughties everyone who thought it was a problem was helping the tourrists or something. But NOW it's a problem.

Ah etherpeek, how simple and limited you were.
 
2013-06-13 11:00:48 AM  

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither

 
2013-06-13 11:01:10 AM  

tbhouston: netweavr: This is like Gay Rights. The older generation is upset and despondent that they exist. The younger generation doesn't care.

The older generation will die off and this "scandal" will disappear.

This lol


It seem that it's the other way around.  The younger generation are the ones who care about this.  The older are 'meh'.
 
2013-06-13 11:01:13 AM  

sendtodave: netweavr: This is like Gay Rights. The older generation is upset and despondent that they exist. The younger generation doesn't care.

The older generation will die off and this "scandal" will disappear.

Really?

The government  Democrats spying on it's own people is, like, totally cool?


FTFY.

You can't have a good nanny state and a nanny to take care of you if she doesn't know what trouble you are about to get in.
 
2013-06-13 11:02:08 AM  

Greil: tenpoundsofcheese: Skleenar: Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

Well, not to take the bait, but how does that enable them to stop or disrupt attacks?

I imagine you take a peek at who Muhammed-Al-Muhammed-Al-Muhammed Ben Bezir talks to, analyze the com patterns, and then you've got a likely group. get warrants based on this analysis and do ACTUAL wiretapping...and prevent bombing. Still starts with a real target though, and metadata won't help you get that...


Not necessarily.  You could start with vague organizations or relationships, like, say, Al Queda websites or (to be more Orwellian) NRA/GOP membership lists.  Then you collate the metadata from communications to or from those organizations and you can pretty quickly identify who the "players" are.  They can then become targets with probable cause for a warrant (because, see, look how many contacts they have with suspicious groups).
 
2013-06-13 11:03:03 AM  

Skleenar: Wow. 1267 hits in the last half hour. Thanks!


What can I say, she's been popular around the office since we happened upon some "deleted" Black Swan scenes from the Fox servers. I'm surprised she agreed to do half that stuff!
 
2013-06-13 11:04:03 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: netweavr: This is like Gay Rights. The older generation is upset and despondent that they exist. The younger generation doesn't care.

The older generation will die off and this "scandal" will disappear.

Really?

The government  Democrats spying on it's own people is, like, totally cool?

FTFY.

You can't have a good nanny state and a nanny to take care of you if she doesn't know what trouble you are about to get in.


You know, I dislike you.  Severely.

But I can't fathom any reason people would defend this, or call for Snowden's head, other than for love of the (current) government.
 
2013-06-13 11:04:26 AM  

Agent 84: Just because we know that Pants full of macaroni!! once ate 27 Encharitos and threw up on a cop doesn't mean we're violating the constitution.


Hey now.  That was a mall security guard, not a cop.
 
2013-06-13 11:04:36 AM  
'Wiretapping' doesn't mean shiat anymore, does it?
 
2013-06-13 11:05:27 AM  

www.notablebiographies.com
Presently blowing huge wads of
dusty  jizz onto the lid of his coffin.

 
2013-06-13 11:05:56 AM  
I wonder if the NSA knows where my mother saved her word doc she keeps calling me about.
 
2013-06-13 11:06:18 AM  

uber humper: Do you think the government's surveillance activities should go any further than what they've stated?


No.  It creeps the hell out of me where they have stated it is.

But so far, it has not been about tapping US persons comm content, at least to my knowledge.  The NSA has had, purportedly, pretty free reign in tapping content of foreign communications, and that would definitely take up a shiat-ton of computing power in and of itself.  But it would would be news if they were to state they are doing the same, without restriction or FISA warrants, to US persons.

But that is pretty much what many people are claiming is occurring, now.  Until evidence of this is offered, I will try to correct the misapprehension.
 
2013-06-13 11:06:21 AM  

Wadded Beef: I wonder if there's a "Holy-shiat-Check-This-Out-Privacy-Invasion-Awesomeness" file compiled from all over the country that the NSA breaks out annually at the Office Christmas party.


Well, a few years ago a number of NSA employees were busted for intercepting and recording, uh, very private calls between deployed military and their spouses/SO's. They then passed the tapes around the office.

So, yeah, I assume they have that sort of thing.
 
2013-06-13 11:07:16 AM  

sendtodave: neversubmit: doglover: I've just always assumed the Feds read ALL my emails.

I've just always assumed I'm such a unimportant little bug no one has bothered to notice me let alone step on me. If I'm wrong about the first how long till I get the second?

Ah.  So you're Chinese.

Security through obscurity.


Huh? No, I'm... er sure I'm Chinese :)
 
2013-06-13 11:07:43 AM  

media.tumblr.com
Presently blowing huge wads of
dusty  jizz onto the lid of his coffin.

 
2013-06-13 11:07:48 AM  
Actually my dad had a good idea about this. If millions of people just put signature in their emails with a bunch of keywords like "bomb, terror, infidels, etc..." we could basically DDOS their search algorithms and render the whole thing useless. Anyone want to pass this along to Anonymous?
 
2013-06-13 11:08:34 AM  

ronaprhys: Cletus C.: ronaprhys: unlikely: Again, we've known this since like the 90s... why is it only just NOW a big deal?

It was a big deal back then, too.  You just weren't paying attention.

Was it a big deal back then? It took recent leaks from a government contractor to expose the extent of the government's reach into our personal lives. The ACLU is now suing the government over these programs. If they knew back in the '90s wouldn't they have sued then, or during the Bush administration?

For some reason, people refuse to acknowledge that much of this information is new to most Americans. Maybe what they're doing now has been done for years but there is new information coming out. If we're going to deal with it and define government's limits people are going to stop being so defensive when it comes to the current president.

Two points to that:
 - There was lots of furor of Bush's activities.  Mostly it was shouted down because terrorism and like such as.  The Patriot Act got lots and lots of (well-deserved) bad press.
- This current stuff seems to be an expansion of what was going on under Bush, which is much more intrusive and actually worse, which means it's getting ever more bad press.


Sure, I was pissed about the Patriot Act and wasn't shy about saying so. The obviously intrusive nature of it in the name of protecting us should have been more disturbing to more Americans. But we were always given assurances it would only be used to target known or suspected terrorists. Now, we're finally getting a look at what it really can do and is doing.

It doesn't make one bit of difference to me which administration has used it or which used it in the worst ways, I'd just like to see clear boundaries and guidelines. Shiatcanning the Patriot Act would be a good start toward that.
 
2013-06-13 11:10:16 AM  

dennysgod: Good luck NSA

[i86.photobucket.com image 400x264]


you fail. they own 2 of them.
 
2013-06-13 11:11:25 AM  

upload.wikimedia.org

Yeah, him too.

 
2013-06-13 11:11:27 AM  
Given recent developments, would you say the time has come to crack each other's skulls open and feast upon the goo inside?
 
2013-06-13 11:12:00 AM  

neversubmit: sendtodave: neversubmit: doglover: I've just always assumed the Feds read ALL my emails.

I've just always assumed I'm such a unimportant little bug no one has bothered to notice me let alone step on me. If I'm wrong about the first how long till I get the second?

Ah.  So you're Chinese.

Security through obscurity.

Huh? No, I'm... er sure I'm Chinese :)


Just saying, that's pretty much how people see it here.

"As long as I don't make trouble, I have no reason to care if the government is watching me."

I expected this to be the general outlook of most Americans in the future.  I expect America to become more athoritarian, like more lke China (and vice versa, actually).  A world of economic freedom, and tacit obedience.

Didn't think it'd happen so soon, though.
 
2013-06-13 11:13:15 AM  

Insaniteus: I hate how all of these "revelations" just keep telling us stuff that we've known about for 10 freaking years.

It's just an attempt to pin this whole process on Obama, despite him actually getting the court and Congressional approval for every search (Which W refused to do).  There are seriously people right now that are furious and horrified that Obama is spying on Americans through the courts, who didn't give one rat's half-eaten ass about Bush doing all of that and more illegally and without the slightest shred of oversight.

I have a theory that nothing pisses off a Republican more than when Obama adopts a Republican policy (This, Health care mandate, Amnesty, TSA, Drone strikes, closed-door meetings, etc).


Yeah, there was no outrage over FISA when Bush was in office.

/that was sarcasm
//people were pissed then too
///you are a partisan retard
 
2013-06-13 11:14:52 AM  

hobberwickey: Actually my dad had a good idea about this. If millions of people just put signature in their emails with a bunch of keywords like "bomb, terror, infidels, etc..." we could basically DDOS their search algorithms and render the whole thing useless. Anyone want to pass this along to Anonymous?


Anonymous? Maybe to the opposite sex! Hell, the only reason we haven't issued a Black Bag order and shipped them to our Idaho FEMA camp Guantanamo Bay is because of all the laughs they give us around the office.
 
2013-06-13 11:15:08 AM  

mrexcess: Deneb81: We'll see what the courts think of these programs. Maybe, if they have the balls to take a case.

As for not giving things to other people of you want them to remain private, why doesn't that apply to postal mail? Oh, right, because when the nation was founded that service existed and so there was no way for legislators and courts to devise bizarre and bogus Fourth Amendment interpretations that denied privacy for that. They tried that trick with phones but eventually enough powerful people were hoist on their own petard that they even extended protections to telephone voice transmissions. Somehow, though, although a Skype call is functionally identical if not technically architected the same way, that doesn't count.

It's time we, the people stopped passively accepting all the shenanigans and demanded that our rights be respected and protected, not grudgingly doled out after massive fights with the very people whose job it is to protect them.


The rules for phones and mail are actually similar. CONTENT is protected - the USPS can't look at your mail because - as the government cannot take content without a warrant.

However, phone records and mailing records were NEVER protected. Ever.

And as of yet I haven't seen (may have missed but haven't seen) any difference between Skype or mail or Verizon - call logs (who, when, how long) are allowed. Call CONTENT is not and is protected.

And you do realize the USPS was specifically authorized by the constitution right? To say it already existed in that form is incorrect.
 
2013-06-13 11:16:27 AM  

sendtodave: tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: netweavr: This is like Gay Rights. The older generation is upset and despondent that they exist. The younger generation doesn't care.

The older generation will die off and this "scandal" will disappear.

Really?

The government  Democrats spying on it's own people is, like, totally cool?

FTFY.

You can't have a good nanny state and a nanny to take care of you if she doesn't know what trouble you are about to get in.

You know, I dislike you.  Severely.


No, I didn't know that.

But I can't fathom any reason people would defend this,or call for Snowden's head, other than for love of the (current) government.

Weird huh?  There are people so in love with the current government that no matter what they do, people defend it.
Next step is that people who criticize this will be called racists.
 
2013-06-13 11:17:13 AM  

Deneb81: Call CONTENT is not and is protected


By whom and from whom?
 
2013-06-13 11:18:45 AM  

Skleenar: uber humper: Do you think the government's surveillance activities should go any further than what they've stated?

No.  It creeps the hell out of me where they have stated it is.

But so far, it has not been about tapping US persons comm content, at least to my knowledge.  The NSA has had, purportedly, pretty free reign in tapping content of foreign communications, and that would definitely take up a shiat-ton of computing power in and of itself.  But it would would be news if they were to state they are doing the same, without restriction or FISA warrants, to US persons.

But that is pretty much what many people are claiming is occurring, now.  Until evidence of this is offered, I will try to correct the misapprehension.


I look at the indexing capabilities of search engines, even the smaller ones, and don't see it as being technologically infeasible.  With computers like this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-celebrates-new-high-performanc e -computing-center-opening_735141.html (50,000 trillion operations per second) and the oft spoke of Utah facility, the Fed is on the bleeding edge. Which makes it pretty easy to believe that is data can be searched on a fairly granular level -- and quickly.
 
Displayed 50 of 386 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report