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.

(Mother Jones)   Metadata schmetadata. The NSA is actually recording every call made every day   (motherjones.com) divider line 382
    More: Followup, NSA, NSA Revelations, international call  
•       •       •

4808 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 7:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-03 12:40:20 AM

GhostFish: jars.traptone: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.

Even if it was technically possible, it wouldn't make any god damn sense. It's a horrible strategy to assist in any kind of investigation. Almost every single compressed piece of information will never be relevant to any investigation and almost none of it will ever be accessed through legal warrant.

This type of shiat doesn't make sense. Not even for a movie style, draconian dictatorship. Anyone with the access to such levels of technology and knowledge would understand that it is a ridiculous waste of resources.

They do not care about stopping terrorism or oppressing people that much. There is a very real technological and monetary cost when it comes to saving or oppressing lives and this kind of program would blow past that bottom line at lightning speed.

We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.




Stasi in East Germany collected the scents of dissidents and suspects.

www.dw.de
 
2013-07-03 12:42:25 AM

HempHead: Stasi in East Germany collected the scents of dissidents and suspects.


Step 1: Build an entire social media revolution on the idea that you are a special, unique snowflake.
Step 2: "LOLL WHO CARE'S IF THE GOVERMNET IS SPYIGN ON ME IM NOT A SPECIAL UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE"
 
2013-07-03 12:43:37 AM

DustBunny: jpo2269: I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis

Interesting anecdote about how much information a private company can gather about you. I would assume that the government could also gather it without a warrant as it's all easily searchable public information.

Where, though, is the government invasion of privacy here? This is all information that you've allowed out into the world through going about your life. If you traced each piece to it's origin you'll find a clause in a terms of use that you've clicked or signed that says that info can be stored and sold.

This encapsulates my biggest issue with all this NSA stuff, people have these assumptions around what privacy means, and what data is out there and who can use it. They click and sign their privacy away every day. The info you put on a credit card application is NOT YOURS if the fine print says it's not. Your school records are NOT YOURS if there's a state or local government bylaw that says it can be used for 'research purposes' and finally, your phone records are NOT YOURS because the terms of use contract you sign with the phone company says they're not, and so they can do what they want with them, use them for their own research, sell them to marketing companies or give them to the government. In the fine print there's most likely a clause that says they'll cooperate with law enforcement where required (and I bet there's a wide definition of 'cooperation').

I think we need to reform all aspects of data collection on people, and it should start with plain language terms of use contracts in big letters, no legalese fine print, that sets your expectations around what can happen with your info. You should be able to opt out of everything being stored, and there should be tight laws around what can be done with it, not just to prevent your phone metadata being used to build relational databases about you, but to stop you getting profiled by corporations as well.


Yes, thank you. I completely agree.

I don't like the idea of the government having so much direct access to so much aggregated data, but we pretty much allowed this to happen.

We all decided that getting access to internet and communications services was worth the risk. They were worth the tradeoff of some company having information about us.

And now all the info has pooled where logic would dictate that it would, and we're farking upset with...someone! It should be largely ourselves for being so lacks in our responsibility to protecting out privacy, but that's a little too real. Best to just dump all our outrage on the government, and ignore that we should have seen this coming from a million miles away.
 
2013-07-03 12:45:47 AM

HempHead: GhostFish: jars.traptone: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.

Even if it was technically possible, it wouldn't make any god damn sense. It's a horrible strategy to assist in any kind of investigation. Almost every single compressed piece of information will never be relevant to any investigation and almost none of it will ever be accessed through legal warrant.

This type of shiat doesn't make sense. Not even for a movie style, draconian dictatorship. Anyone with the access to such levels of technology and knowledge would understand that it is a ridiculous waste of resources.

They do not care about stopping terrorism or oppressing people that much. There is a very real technological and monetary cost when it comes to saving or oppressing lives and this kind of program would blow past that bottom line at lightning speed.

We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.



Stasi in East Germany collected the scents of dissidents and suspects.


Did they collect everyones scents, multiple times a day?
 
2013-07-03 12:46:24 AM

GhostFish: Yes, thank you. I completely agree.

I don't like the idea of the government having so much direct access to so much aggregated data, but we pretty much allowed this to happen.

We all decided that getting access to internet and communications services was worth the risk. They were worth the tradeoff of some company having information about us.

And now all the info has pooled where logic would dictate that it would, and we're farking upset with...someone! It should be largely ourselves for being so lacks in our responsibility to protecting out privacy, but that's a little too real. Best to just dump all our outrage on the government, and ignore that we should have seen this coming from a million miles away.


The only way to keep this from happening would be to have gone off the grid and shunned technology?
 
2013-07-03 12:53:56 AM

sendtodave: GhostFish: Yes, thank you. I completely agree.

I don't like the idea of the government having so much direct access to so much aggregated data, but we pretty much allowed this to happen.

We all decided that getting access to internet and communications services was worth the risk. They were worth the tradeoff of some company having information about us.

And now all the info has pooled where logic would dictate that it would, and we're farking upset with...someone! It should be largely ourselves for being so lacks in our responsibility to protecting out privacy, but that's a little too real. Best to just dump all our outrage on the government, and ignore that we should have seen this coming from a million miles away.

The only way to keep this from happening would be to have gone off the grid and shunned technology?


Practically. The info was already being collected by private companies, and the government could usually get access with a simple warrant.

Newer programs point to the government cutting out the middleman so that they have more ready and reliable access to the data once the warrant is issued. So from that perspective, things haven't changed greatly beyond what was already being done by private entities.

There is of course danger in having all this info in one place, where people can access it illegally without a warrant.

But absolutely none of these developments should really shock or surprise anyone. You don't have to like it, but we all should have seen it coming.
 
2013-07-03 12:57:50 AM

sendtodave: The only way to keep this from happening would be to have gone off the grid and shunned technology?


To be honest the whole thing shows the fundamental imbalance not between the people and the government, but the people and the lawyers that write the contracts for the benefit of the companies that have the foresight to create ownership of things that don't yet have a use.

They claimed ownership of all our data long before anyone even knew it could be collected, in some cases before the techy-types building the infrastructure knew it could be collected...hell in some cases they created language that claimed ownership of types of data that didn't even exist yet.

Once they owned it, they collected it, and once they collected it they studied it and monetised it. It's no coincidence that most practical psychology research (especially organisational psychology) these days is either done specifically by and for marketing companies, or used by them.

The government is a latecomer to game and is just hoovering up what the corporations and marketers have already collected.
 
2013-07-03 12:59:54 AM

GhostFish: Did they collect everyones scents, multiple times a day?


This is perhaps the most interesting computer system in the world. What planet do you live on that you don't think this would be interesting to the government?
 
2013-07-03 01:04:49 AM
while, i'm neither shocked, nor surprised by this, i'm not desensitized enough to where i can just shrug it off. it's unsettling still to know there's no such thing as privacy anymore.
 
2013-07-03 01:05:17 AM

thurstonxhowell: firefly212: It's not that I don't think they have the capacity to collect all the data alleged... it's that I know they aren't competent enough to analyze it.

Yup. Collecting every phone call ever made would render the data useless. You'd be searching for a needle in a universe.


I prefer the phrase, "needle in a needle stack."
 
2013-07-03 01:08:04 AM

GhostFish: Practically. The info was already being collected by private companies, and the government could usually get access with a simple warrant.

Newer programs point to the government cutting out the middleman so that they have more ready and reliable access to the data once the warrant is issued. So from that perspective, things haven't changed greatly beyond what was already being done by private entities.

There is of course danger in having all this info in one place, where people can access it illegally without a warrant.

But absolutely none of these developments should really shock or surprise anyone. You don't have to like it, but we all should have seen it coming.


So, really, there was no practical way to keep this from happening.

Living in public.

Well, | guess it's back to the days when all your neighbors and leaders knew what your shiat smelled like.
 
m00
2013-07-03 01:15:32 AM

TheBigJerk: Now y'all republican asshats wanna DO something about it or you wanna keep scoring points on the Obamanation?

If you got a problem with this, blaming the democrats won't change it, because the rank-and-file you manage to convert with that argument are the same motherfarkers who were JUST FINE with worse under Dubya and who watched "The X-Files" as if it were a documentary in the late 90s.

You need more than "It's OK If You Are Republican."


You need more than two colors in your paint brush
 
2013-07-03 01:22:31 AM
I work for a company that makes fibre switches and directors. Trust me, the government can't be storing this much data. At least not for any useful retention period. If they were, we would get bigger bonuses.
 
2013-07-03 02:01:44 AM
Putting the genie back in the bottle is going to be difficult if not downright impossible.

It basically depends on 2 things:

1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional
2. We stop electing social conservatives to office to spite the Democratic Party

And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd option.
 
2013-07-03 02:04:40 AM

firefly212: LasersHurt: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

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

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

Likely they're storing the output from ARGUS drones.

I can only assume it's because people aren't intimately familiar with tech, but it's silly how people keep bringing up the storage capacity of the datacenter. It's irrelevant. Amazon has more than enough CAPACITY to store every call made, but the issue is slightly more complicated than raw capacity.

The data center is big enough that pretty much, no matter what you say they're recording, it's possible. I don't think voice data would take up that much space, given decent compression. Even if you get into the email/sms side of things, weeding out duplicates and spam is easy enough, and storing whats left wouldn't be that big of a feat.

The problem (in my mind) is not one of storage, but of organizing all of it in such a manner that it is usable/mineable in a semi-efficient manner. I have strong doubts about the ability to filter such unfocused and erratic information flows into something useful, actionable, and productive. Thus far, the keywords released have indicated that they could have their data mining operation alert someone if there was a major event happening, but none of it is indicative of an ability to foresee events prior to occurrence.


-------------------------------------

I remember folks talking about and personally reading about research/work on computer systems designed to detect, classify, identify and preempt activity over a decade ago. Which is why many people assume we have very little privacy beyond some of the personal freedoms we enjoy in the privacy of our homes.

Like so many other things, people ask if you are wearing your tin hat when you mention things like this.  Then when something leaks, of course the gov only admits to what has become public - like they are doing now.

Is Snowden a hero or a traitor? Who knows what history will say about him, but I must admit it's a bit humorous to watch him release bits of info at a time in order to show how our gov keeps us in the dark and feed us BS much of the time.

Old school, and suddenly relevant:

ts3.mm.bing.net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office
 
2013-07-03 02:04:54 AM

whidbey: And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd2nd option.


FTFY
 
2013-07-03 02:05:09 AM
".....until there is a viable 3rd option"

Everybody move to Peru?
 
2013-07-03 02:12:22 AM

whidbey: Putting the genie back in the bottle is going to be difficult if not downright impossible.

It basically depends on 2 things:

1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional
2. We stop electing social conservatives to office to spite the Democratic Party

And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd option.


Look, you're a discerning eye. Consider, for a moment, just the documents released, not what other people tell you they're saying. Note the one with the FBI - it suggests the NSA doesn't look at any of that stuff until the FBI (domestic) or CIA (foreign) direct it. Doesn't that suggest this isn't a net collecting all marine life but hooks specifically baited?
 
2013-07-03 02:14:05 AM

vygramul: whidbey: Putting the genie back in the bottle is going to be difficult if not downright impossible.

It basically depends on 2 things:

1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional
2. We stop electing social conservatives to office to spite the Democratic Party

And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd option.

Look, you're a discerning eye. Consider, for a moment, just the documents released, not what other people tell you they're saying. Note the one with the FBI - it suggests the NSA doesn't look at any of that stuff until the FBI (domestic) or CIA (foreign) direct it. Doesn't that suggest this isn't a net collecting all marine life but hooks specifically baited?


I'm just saying we need a top-level judicial review of this shiat.
 
2013-07-03 02:21:49 AM

swahnhennessy: I, for one, will trust and defend the guys who keep lying to us about all of this. It's legal! What more do you want?


Obama or Greenwald?
 
2013-07-03 02:29:59 AM

whidbey: I'm just saying we need a top-level judicial review of this shiat.


Not likely that it would make a difference. The only plausible Constitutional issue, based on how far it got in the courts before, is the warrantless wiretapping of foreign communications, and that doesn't really have anything to do with what's been leaked.

And even that isn't necessarily a strong case. I know a number of people have commented that the ACLU didn't have standing and that they could sue again if they had information about specific wiretaps (which as far as I know they don't have yet). But it's also plausible (perhaps more so) that the only reason the case went as far as it did was because of the standing issue - i.e., the Supreme Court took the case because they wanted to clarify that one technical point.
 
2013-07-03 02:43:22 AM
Stopped reading after the first two paragraphs.  I'm tired of journalists who don't know how the internet works.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:40 AM

jst3p: I work for a company that makes fibre switches and directors. Trust me, the government can't be storing this much data. At least not for any useful retention period. If they were, we would get bigger bonuses.


300 posts later and people still think they know everything that is technically possible.

Newsflash sport, you don't. Did you know a fighter jet could be 100% stealth 5 years before the F-117 was publicly unveiled as well? No, you didn't.

The gov't collects, analyzes, and stores everything. Period.
 
2013-07-03 03:01:48 AM
I can't figure out how anybody is surprised about the cellphone stuff. I remember watching a 20/20 or one of those shows back in the 90's about the war one drugs. The person that they were interviewing, I forget what agency he was from, said then that they have the ability to listen to every cellphone call and record them, he even went on to explain why it was legal to do so with cellphone calls.
 
2013-07-03 03:04:47 AM

PreMortem: jst3p: I work for a company that makes fibre switches and directors. Trust me, the government can't be storing this much data. At least not for any useful retention period. If they were, we would get bigger bonuses.

300 posts later and people still think they know everything that is technically possible.

Newsflash sport, you don't. Did you know a fighter jet could be 100% stealth 5 years before the F-117 was publicly unveiled as well? No, you didn't.

The gov't collects, analyzes, and stores everything. Period.


Yep. I remember back in the 80's and 90's people were talking about the NSA headquarters and how all of the landline traffic was being recorded there. Back then this was blown off as conspiracy theories because people who thought they knew everything that was technically possible said that it wasn't possible.
 
2013-07-03 03:23:57 AM

GameSprocket: To be useful, the data would have to be at least on magnetic disk. At around $10/GB, each zettabyte would cost almost $11 trillion (1,099,511,627,776 GB. Check my Math. I am very tired).



Apparently so..otherwise, are you honestly trying to tell me that the 500GB HDD in my $400 laptop cost $5000..?

Looking at the Western Digital Scorpio Blue 500GB HDD on walmart. com ($53.86), I come up with a cost/GB right around $0.10

Yer off by two orders of magnitude in your calculations..at least..
 
2013-07-03 03:25:33 AM

whidbey: 1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional


Any decade now..
 
2013-07-03 03:29:30 AM
According to this survey, cell phone users said they spend 23 days a year on their phones (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/you-spend-23-days-a-year-on-your-pho ne -say-new-figures-50010588/).  That comes out to be about 33,000 minutes.  Let's say 1mb/min for a phone call...so that'd be 33GB per person.  300 million people in the US --> 9.2 exabytes.

Considering they are talking about storage capacity in the Zetabytes - they can not only record every phone call in the US - they can easily record every phone call in the world.  Whether they are doing it or not is a different story, and whether other parts of the technology are there is not something I know much about, but their storage capacity is certainly way more than enough.
 
2013-07-03 03:31:01 AM
So...they know when people login to their email accounts and/or send messages or chat programs? That's...not too big of a deal. Nor is it storing everything. It's not real-time access to items, it's real time notification of chat and email accounts.

Many people, especially those using Chrome, login to those accounts as soon as they start using their computers. Hell, my phone is always connected to my email accounts.

And 'Glenn Greenwald said so' is not a source.

/learn about data storage
//check sources
///avoid media hysteria
 
2013-07-03 03:35:28 AM
As a side note, Snowden didn't graduate high school, he got a GED. At 16. Learned enough in a couple years of college to be scooped up by the gov't to be a cyber spook.
 
2013-07-03 03:38:14 AM

Drannon: According to this survey, cell phone users said they spend 23 days a year on their phones (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/you-spend-23-days-a-year-on-your-pho ne -say-new-figures-50010588/).  That comes out to be about 33,000 minutes.  Let's say 1mb/min for a phone call...so that'd be 33GB per person.  300 million people in the US --> 9.2 exabytes.

Considering they are talking about storage capacity in the Zetabytes - they can not only record every phone call in the US - they can easily record every phone call in the world.  Whether they are doing it or not is a different story, and whether other parts of the technology are there is not something I know much about, but their storage capacity is certainly way more than enough.


For the record, 1 Zettabyte = 1024 Exabytes.  So if they have a storage capacity of 5 Zetabytes, they can store every phone call made by every US citizen during their entire lifetime in less than ONE zetabyte with only mp3 level compression....

As I said, I'm not saying they are, or about other aspects of technology necessary to do it, but if they have data centers measuring in the zetabytes, storage is not the limiting factor...
 
2013-07-03 03:53:26 AM
That's an awful lot of "yada, yada, yada..."
 
2013-07-03 04:01:19 AM
i.imgur.com

Proof positive that the Library of Congress contains trillions of books.
 
2013-07-03 04:20:31 AM
Did not read the entire thread, but...

If you think this is technologically possible, you're just as stupid as the fascists that wish it were possible.

FFS...
 
2013-07-03 04:21:58 AM
It's Mother Jones dude.  They're like the WND for liberals. 

Don't ever sign up for their email news letter, you cannot unsubxcribe.  Fark them
 
2013-07-03 04:25:00 AM

Jabberwookiee: Did not read the entire thread, but...

If you think this is technologically possible, you're just as stupid as the fascists that wish it were possible.

FFS...


So says someone who has never worked in aerospace or any other defense industry.

/worked in aerospace. They aren't kidding when the classifed shiat is about 50 years ahead of what's not.
 
2013-07-03 04:28:24 AM

Peki: Jabberwookiee: Did not read the entire thread, but...

If you think this is technologically possible, you're just as stupid as the fascists that wish it were possible.

FFS...

So says someone who has never worked in aerospace or any other defense industry.

/worked in aerospace. They aren't kidding when the classifed shiat is about 50 years ahead of what's not.


Keep farking that chicken. And being needlessly presumptuous about it.
 
2013-07-03 04:33:44 AM

DustBunny: jpo2269: I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis

Interesting anecdote about how much information a private company can gather about you. I would assume that the government could also gather it without a warrant as it's all easily searchable public information.

Where, though, is the government invasion of privacy here? This is all information that you've allowed out into the world through going about your life. If you traced each piece to it's origin you'll find a clause in a terms of use that you've clicked or signed that says that info can be stored and sold.

This encapsulates my biggest issue with all this NSA stuff, people have these assumptions around what privacy means, and what data is out there and who can use it. They click and sign their privacy away every day. The info you put on a credit card application is NOT YOURS if the fine print says it's not. Your school records are NOT YOURS if there's a state or local government bylaw that says it can be used for 'research purposes' and finally, your phone records are NOT YOURS because the terms of use contract you sign with the phone company says they're not, and so they can do what they want with them, use them for their own research, sell them to marketing companies or give them to the government. In the fine print there's most likely a clause that says they'll cooperate with law enforcement where required (and I bet there's a wide definition of 'cooperation').

I think we need to reform all aspects of data collection on people, and it should start with plain language terms of use contracts in big letters, no legalese fine print, that sets your expectations around what can happen with your info. You should be able to opt out of everything being stored, and there should be tight laws around what can be done with it, not just to prevent your phone metadata being used to build relational databases about you, but to stop you getting profiled by corporations as well.


This.
This.
And this again.

Which I've been saying since this broke. If people insist on spraying their data out into the ethersphere, having cellphone conversations, the convenience of one-swipe purchasing, cloud storage, online communication, etc. etc.......well....there's going to be someone, whether it's our government or someone else's, or a company or a black-hat hacker or SOMEBODY who is going to collect it and sell it off to the highest bidder. Are people honestly naive/stupid enough to think "Well, I should be able to leave my personal info out there and nobody else should look at it,' as if that would do it; like a teenage girl upset that her little brother read through her VERY PRIVIT DIARY cuz it was locked?

Yeah, in a perfect world, I guess an ethical government wouldn't peek at someone's very privit dariy because it had MARY'S DAIRY! SEKRIT! PRIVIT! written on the cover; but we don't live in that world. And does it matter so much if the US Government is collating your data, or if Walmart is doing it (which they are) or if Hackerbob is doing it (which he is) or the Israeli government, or China (yep, them too). The best we can do is try to keep our personal info to ourselves, pressure our lawmakers to write tighter laws with stricter controls on who gets access to what data, and realize that it's now the 21st century, and if we want convenience, then personal data is pretty much available.

Or, you know, go back to the barter system, old fashioned cash registers with the little buttons, no more online purchases and point-of-sale transactions and everything goes back to how it was in 1950. There are people who'd like that a lot. Probably nobody here on Fark. But there ARE people who would profit by everyone being suspicious and paranoid of the government, you know. Very much so.
 
2013-07-03 04:41:23 AM

Jabberwookiee: Keep farking that chicken. And being needlessly presumptuous about


Prove me wrong then?

I know what the gov't has the way of technology. You want to claim incompetence in being able to manage it? I'll give you that one. But not having the pure ability to do it? Nope. That's a load of bs right there, and anyone who has a decent grounding in computer science knows that.

Gyrfalcon: If people insist on spraying their data out into the ethersphere,


And that's about the worst part of it. I'd be wiling to bet most of the information they've got we've given up voluntarily, every time we use our FB login to make a purchase from Amazon or look at movies on Netflix. There's a reason I'm a ghost on Google, and it's served me pretty well (at least until people start complaining that I'm too unavailable because I'm not on Facebook, and employers look at me like I'm anti-social, but w/e, not out to impress them anyway).

/you should hear the uproar because I don't have a cell phone. It's amazing what you find you can live without when you have to. Someone not being available 24/7 has now become the exception, not the rule.
 
2013-07-03 04:47:41 AM

cptjeff: Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.

And I bet they're including the text file they generate when they talk about "metadata".

I'm generally a fan of Obama. But if this is even close to true, he should be impeached. This is such a radical overreach that an example needs to be set.


Err what? A program that preceeds Obama, was implemented by Congress and wasn't vetoed by a previous President, and over which Obama has no direct control is a reason to impeach Obama why?
 
2013-07-03 04:49:56 AM

Peki: I know what the gov't has the way of technology. You want to claim incompetence in being able to manage it? I'll give you that one. But not having the pure ability to do it? Nope. That's a load of bs right there, and anyone who has a decent grounding in computer science knows that.


Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread...

/computer science/information technology student
 
2013-07-03 04:52:01 AM

Jabberwookiee: Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread.../computer science/information technology student


Acknowledged. You just went up a rung or two on my Fark respect ladder for at least admitting that. :)
 
2013-07-03 04:56:56 AM

Peki: Jabberwookiee: Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread.../computer science/information technology student

Acknowledged. You just went up a rung or two on my Fark respect ladder for at least admitting that. :)


Heh, thanks. I attribute this superhuman ability to my philosophy education, which I'm told is completely useless. :p
 
2013-07-03 05:09:55 AM

Jabberwookiee: Peki: Jabberwookiee: Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread.../computer science/information technology student

Acknowledged. You just went up a rung or two on my Fark respect ladder for at least admitting that. :)

Heh, thanks. I attribute this superhuman ability to my philosophy education, which I'm told is completely useless. :p


No worries. I'm an English major. Similarly useless.

/also want to get my Masters in Divinity. I know, I'm really looking to be in the 1%. . .
 
2013-07-03 05:11:59 AM

Peki: Jabberwookiee: Keep farking that chicken. And being needlessly presumptuous about

Prove me wrong then?

I know what the gov't has the way of technology. You want to claim incompetence in being able to manage it? I'll give you that one. But not having the pure ability to do it? Nope. That's a load of bs right there, and anyone who has a decent grounding in computer science knows that.

Gyrfalcon: If people insist on spraying their data out into the ethersphere,

And that's about the worst part of it. I'd be wiling to bet most of the information they've got we've given up voluntarily, every time we use our FB login to make a purchase from Amazon or look at movies on Netflix. There's a reason I'm a ghost on Google, and it's served me pretty well (at least until people start complaining that I'm too unavailable because I'm not on Facebook, and employers look at me like I'm anti-social, but w/e, not out to impress them anyway).

/you should hear the uproar because I don't have a cell phone. It's amazing what you find you can live without when you have to. Someone not being available 24/7 has now become the exception, not the rule.


You do realize that just because you give information (contractually) to a third party does not mean that you give up all rights to privacy?  I conduct business contractually with my bank.  They are a third party.  I am not spraying my information into the "ethersphere" simply by doing it electronically instead of in-person with a bank employee.

Now...that isn't to say that facebook might wanna redo its EULA to allow for more privacy (this goes for all social networks) and yes you do have a reasonable right to privacy in your emails and phone calls regardless of whether or not they are on a cellular or other wireless device.  There is a level of encryption involved which indicates that it isn't broadcast like say KISS 97.7 is or whatever radio station is in your area.  You aren't electronically ejaculating.

In-fact the FBI has devices which they may have misused and indeed falsified court papers in order to get judges to sign off on warrants to use.  These devices co-opt the cell tower locally and re-route your cell phone through their device.  Quite neat actually but basically they have access to not just the target call but the calls of anyone in the affected area.

no, I'm not joking.
 
2013-07-03 05:16:13 AM

TDBoedy: You do realize that just because you give information (contractually) to a third party does not mean that you give up all rights to privacy?  I conduct business contractually with my bank.  They are a third party.  I am not spraying my information into the "ethersphere" simply by doing it electronically instead of in-person with a bank employee.


Yes, I do. There's a legal phrase called expectation of privacy. It's why the FBI called when I turned my ex-husband in regarding stuff on his computer. If the computer had been password protected, then I would have no right to turn the evidence over to the cops. There wasn't, so there was no "expectation of privacy."

However, I'm old school. I was raised that no matter what you send out there, someone can grab it and use it against you, privacy be damned. As I've gotten older, that just seems to hold more and more true. Also, expectation of privacy is a small consolation when you're being held indefinitely in GITMO and never get a trial (and if you think that people aren't being held indefinitely on US soil without trial, you don't know much about the immigration situation).

/same as how yes, I have an expectation that a bank won't send people to trash all my stuff, but it happens anyway. You might win the court battle, but your shiat is still gone and you're gonna go through a lot in legal fees before you get anything remotely approaching "justice"
 
2013-07-03 05:19:41 AM

Peki: No worries. I'm an English major. Similarly useless.

/also want to get my Masters in Divinity. I know, I'm really looking to be in the 1%. . .


Ew, an English major who wants a masters in divinity? Get the fark away from me!

The NSA will probably consider you mostly harmless. So there's that.
 
2013-07-03 05:21:41 AM

Jabberwookiee: The NSA will probably consider you mostly harmless. So there's that.


Yeah, except I'm UU. We tend to gum up the works. .

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/martha-northington-7 4- year-old-woman-arrested-wendy-davis-filibuster/66698/

/recently converted, so a bit of a zealot. If you've got questions, please e-mail me so I don't preach here. :)
 
2013-07-03 05:46:30 AM

RexTalionis: BS:

[www.motherjones.com image 623x556]

If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.

Real-time knowledge of when someone logs in and when someone sent a message (i.e. email events) is not the same as knowing the content of the message. Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."


Another interesting thing about that image is the case numbering system - if they are recording every email from yahoo (and so on), and have been doing so for years, why does the case number only go up to 10 million? For the major providers wouldn't that be probably 3-4 digits short of how many emails/chat logins/posts or whatever they are tracking over such a long period, let alone future proofing it for even the medium term.
 
2013-07-03 06:14:16 AM

vygramul: numbquil: vygramul: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

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

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

5 zetabytes isn't enough to hold all the phone calls made by Americans since 9/11. Of 2006.

I'm not saying they are doing it but for one thing you are assuming that they store the calls forever. Secondly, the article does not claim that they are recording every single phone call. It simply claims that they are recording billions of phone calls. That is a lot different than every single call ever since 9/11.

Yabut the article is claiming it without any supporting documentation. That's like saying, "Look! That SEAL team member has a gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute! We conclude he kills hundreds of Americans a year!"


Well then why not just say that. You know instead of claiming that the technology doesn't exist and whatnot. I'm pretty sure that we'll have a much larger picture of what is really going on by the end of all this. I think Snowden is using the fact that they have no idea exactly what he took to insure his safety. He's not going to do one big dump of all the data at once.
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report