sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.
MrEricSir: RexTalionis: 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."Well, you could read the rest of the slide you posted and notice items B and E on the list are IMs and email, respectively.
This is from a speech that Glenn Greenwald gave last Friday:....It talks about how a brand new technology enables the National Security Agency to redirect into its repositories one billion cell phone calls every single day.....It doesn't mean they're listening to every call. It means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon million upon millions of our phone and email records.
Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Right, because why wouldn't you trust the government that's been hiding a massive spying program to be completely honest with you about the fake court system they operate in secret? Oh wait...1. They haven't really done a bangup job of hiding this program, considering it's been all over the news for years now.2. That "fake court system" was set up before most Farkers were even born. It's not anything new.3. I will trust the evidence I have until I find evidence that contradicts it. So if you have some evidence that ANYONE is viewing this data without a warrant, or that the warrant process is less than ethical, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'll trust the evidence I have that warrants are required and not easy to get.
unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.
PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.RexTalionis: BS:Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.
Phinn: sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.The target of the surveillance is you. The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment. The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.
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.
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.
James F. Campbell: I wonder if it would be possible to encrypt your data transmission in such a way that it does something malicious to whatever it's stored on -- or, at the very least, defeats storage of itself.
Gyrfalcon: So on both counts, people are worrying at the wrong end. A government bound by laws as ours is simply won't be using the kinds of illicit means to subjugate its citizens as if we were living in a bad sci-fi dystopia. And a government that would be using such means wouldn't be bound by law and thus wouldn't need to pretend to be obeying the law anymore--and you would know it; we'd be living in a pretty obvious dictatorship, sci-fi dystopias notwithstanding.
Gyrfalcon: A government that wants to torture people, yet goes the extra mile to redefine torture in legalese so it will be defensible in court, isn't the sort of government that will be using metadata, however illicitly collected, to create black dossiers on random citizens; even if they could dig through infino-bytes of data and find such incriminating evidence.
Nobodyn0se: That's a completely separate argument than the one I was having with Mr Derpy up there.As an answer: I don't know. It might be. It might not be. That's a very relevant question that should be debated and discussed. But it's a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent, it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment, meaning it's also being overseen by the judicial branch.Trying to frame this as some huge deal that is unprecedented and horribly violating all our rights are overblown at best, full of crap at worst.
Nobodyn0se: sendtodave: guess these are possibilities:1) The NSA and FBI are doing blanket surveillance. They get all (or at least much of) the relevant data floating around the cloud (bad).2) They are targeting specific people without a warrant, and getting data on them (bad).3) They are targeting specific people with a rubber stamp warrant (less bad).If it's the third, well, there is a political solution - get rid of secret FISA courts.You forgot the most likely one:4) They are targeting specific people with a difficult to obtain warrant (Perfectly fine).
Enemabag Jones: If anyone can make sense of the NSA documents Snowden released, here is the links below:Link
Gyrfalcon: Enemabag Jones: A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".Waste NSA's time.If they are looking for "keywords" then their time is being wasted.Because they cannot possibly be investigating every time someone says "Yo, I think they set us up the bomb!"I just don't know why people think that because they CAN collect and monitor everyone's data/"metadata" that they ARE. And that if they are, they're somehow combing it for incriminating "keywords" in the hopes of finding something. This is the same agency that when presented with the Phoenix memo couldn't connect enough of the dots to stop the 9/11 terrorists--not even one of them. The one guy who was caught was stopped by an alert ticket agent, ffs, who found it odd that someone would be flying into Miami with no money or luggage and only a shaky grasp of the English language.Here's an actual story you might find instructive. A law professor once asked a roomful of hard-bitten cops what they'd do if the warrant requirement was totally abandoned--if they didn't have to ask for any warrants at all anymore. "Kick in doors!" one of them yelled. "Just kick in doors, all day long!" OK, the lawyer said, but which doors? The cops were brought up short as they realized what a waste of time it would be to spend all day "kicking in doors" and rummaging around various apartments looking for "something" when they still needed a place to start looking.It's the same thing here. The NSA may have infino-bytes of data and may even have computers that can pull out "keywords" to start looking at and find suspicious numbers to analyze...or they could do it more efficiently from the other end, and find suspicious people first and then listen to their phones afterward, either with or without warrants. They may--like everyone here on F ...
DustBunny: sendtodave: So, they have content. The question is how/when do they get it?And isn't that the biggest question? In and of itself that slide you put up there is not incriminating in the slightest, it's just a flowchart of where stuff goes when they get it. It's almost meaningless in this discussion until your question is answered, and NOONE has even suggested that they have an accurate answer based on documented evidence except the government.
Enemabag Jones: A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".Waste NSA's time.
Silverstaff: MisterRonbo: There are quotes from authorities that strongly indicate this happened with the Boston bombers.Citation Needed.Please. I'm kinda curious. What Government officials say that the US went back to pre-existing archives of tapped calls to investigate the Tsarnaev Brothers? I'd not heard anything about this, and I'm kinda wondering what official would say this if it was a classified program.
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
Mrbogey: We've built Skynet but instead of national defense we made him a voyeur.
LedZeppelinRule: So what's the technological hurdle here? I would really love for someone to point it out, because at this point I believe the worst is probably true. It makes every bit of sense for the NSA to record every shred of communication they can get their hands on and look at it later, once they get a rubber-stamped "warrant" to access it.
RexTalionis: sendtodave: RexTalionis: Did you noticed that that slide said nothing about recording anything?They have access to basically all types of content, and are notified in real time when triggers for new content occur, but they're not actually recording anything.I want to believe.Or they can just record when a message is sent or received. Which is, once again, metadata.
MrEricSir: If the government is hiding something important, then they're keeping information out of the hands of the people. Therefore, it's not a democracy.
MrEricSir: How does trusting a government that is hiding its dirty secrets from you fit?
unlikely: Add on top of that the amount of storage you'd need to hold every voice call made for a single day and multiply it by even just a week you've gone into crazybucket territory.
udhq: 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?Hey, if you don't want this going on, do what Obama asked you to in his speech last month: contact your congress-person and ask them to change the law!
MisterRonbo: Trail of Dead: You'd think we would have heard about all the cases that got thrown out because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people going to jail because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people being convicted because of legal wiretaps. Something. I'm hearing crickets.COINTELPRO operated for 15 years. It was another four years after that when the Church Committee hearings revealed what they'd been doing.The CIA's abuses from the 1950s to the early 1970s was collected in a series of files known as the "family jewels". The information was released to the public in 1977If you're not using this stuff in prosecutions, its easy to keep it secret. Notice how many sting operations the FBI conducts against wanna-be terrorists? Suddenly an informant appears, talks the idiots in to something stupid, provides them with a fake bomb.Maybe that's all due to informants. Or maybe an informant tips them off, and thanks to the wiretaps their informant has a great set of information going in: insight in to everyone's relationships and personalities.
udhq: Yes, Obama is clearly responsible for this program that was first made public 2 years before he took office.....
MrEricSir: Right, because why wouldn't you trust the government that's been hiding a massive spying program to be completely honest with you about the fake court system they operate in secret? Oh wait...
cannotsuggestaname: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.That is not true. The NSA Salt Lake facility has 5 ZB (zettabytes) of storage. Let's put that number in to perspective for everyone. The entirety of the internet is 500 EB (exabytes), which is .5 ZB. The entirety of all global data transmission is 2.7 ZB. They can record everything sent twice over.Keep thinking that it is a technological impossibility and therefore the NSA can't or won't do it.
cannotsuggestaname: There is a reason they have 5 ZB in SLC and another 2.5 in San Antonio. They didn't just put that crazy amount of storage capability out there because ZOMG SO COOL!They did it because of intercepts
Triumph: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.Like you know what technology exists.
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 18 2017 10:07:31
Runtime: 0.703 sec (702 ms)