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.

(The Hill)   The NSA scandal that wasn't a scandal that was a scandal then became a non-scandal about the time it was a scandal while at the end it wasn't is now a scandal again and this time it doesnt look too good for the US Government   (thehill.com) divider line 138
    More: Followup, NSA, U.S. Government, Microsoft, e-mail encryption, web chat, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, SkyDrive, cloud storage  
•       •       •

3748 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jul 2013 at 6:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-11 05:11:43 PM  
Who didn't already know that microsoft was evil?
 
2013-07-11 05:27:52 PM  
Of course if you encrypt it before you send it -they aint getting nothing.

suck 011k11001 01100 0 11ock 011s160001

(Not encrypted)
 
2013-07-11 05:37:26 PM  
Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.
 
2013-07-11 05:48:35 PM  
i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-11 05:50:40 PM  
 
2013-07-11 05:59:38 PM  
RE the headline - Not really, no.
 
2013-07-11 06:04:35 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.


Where's the pride of being none of those if you're everything else about everything and anything?
 
2013-07-11 06:39:15 PM  
I see no documents? Just summary of what they say the documents mean.
 
2013-07-11 06:39:31 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.


Yeah, I'd go so far as to say that they're not really a scandal so much as a shameful black mark on the nation's history, like Japanese internment camps, or the California Eugenics sterilization program, or New Coke.

"Scandal" implies some shameful secret coming to light, this shiat was a centerpoint of the campaign speeches of half the people in elected office, and the other half realize it's shameful and even speak against it but keep voting to up the ante on it anyway.  So, y'know, not really a secret ever.  Still worth being upset about it, though.  And I am.
 
2013-07-11 06:49:37 PM  
Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer
 
2013-07-11 06:51:01 PM  
I just heard about this one today:

Jailed Journalist Barrett Brown Faces 105 Years For Reporting on Hacked Private Intelligence Firms

I almost find the attempted smears and coverups more offensive than the actual spying.
 
2013-07-11 06:53:55 PM  

basemetal: Who didn't already know that microsoft was evil?


This.

Apple invented evil. Microsoft stole evil from Apple. And then made plain vanilla evil into BSOD EVIL!
 
2013-07-11 06:57:44 PM  
But they just STORED the emails. They'd never ever look at them without a warrant. Trust them.
 
2013-07-11 06:59:33 PM  
Oh for fark's sake...

"Documents leaked by former government contractor Edward Snowden show that Microsoft helped the National Security Agency (NSA) work around the encrypted code on its new Outlook portal after the spy agency expressed concern that it wouldn't be able to intercept Web chats"

That's kind of the point, dickbags. WTF?
 
2013-07-11 07:00:20 PM  
 
2013-07-11 07:05:35 PM  
I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.
 
2013-07-11 07:06:04 PM  

Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer


From your link: "The original stories make it sound as though the tech companies involved are eagerly turning over unrestricted access to data about their customers. The vehemence of the denials makes it clear that no such eagerness exists."

Ooooh... they denied it. NM then.
 
2013-07-11 07:19:51 PM  

FuturePastNow: I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.


Ding! Ding!

Follow the money. Considering the Govt. is the largest customer in America, it's not wise to upset them. I've had people literally beg me to forgive them for a late shipment in fear I'd never order from them again.

They give me gummy bears with every order of drugs. Is that technically a bribe?
 
2013-07-11 07:27:43 PM  

NewportBarGuy: FuturePastNow: I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.

Ding! Ding!

Follow the money. Considering the Govt. is the largest customer in America, it's not wise to upset them. I've had people literally beg me to forgive them for a late shipment in fear I'd never order from them again.

They give me gummy bears with every order of drugs. Is that technically a bribe?


A document delivery company I used to work for would get care packages from Famous Amos in the form of cookies. I was always disappointed some of our other customers didn't do that. Sandoz, for instance.
 
2013-07-11 07:30:58 PM  

Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer


This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.
 
2013-07-11 07:34:00 PM  
Sorry, not yet.

Keep trying.

Sooner or later you'll find one.
 
2013-07-11 07:38:01 PM  

unlikely: Sorry, not yet.

Keep trying.

Sooner or later you'll find one.


At least this is the closest thing to a legitimate scandal yet...but Republicans aren't harping on it as much because they wholeheartedly support this shiat.
 
2013-07-11 07:42:11 PM  

LordJiro: Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer

This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.


It doesn't matter. The fact they are collecting the data is what matters. It would be like if the government put surveillance cameras in your house. Why would they watch you? You are just a regular citizen! It isn't like they could watch every house in the nation!

And anyone who thinks this isn't bad is likely a partisan hack, and since this is Fark, that should be expected.
 
2013-07-11 07:42:25 PM  

NewportBarGuy: FuturePastNow: I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.

Ding! Ding!

Follow the money. Considering the Govt. is the largest customer in America, it's not wise to upset them.


I was taking this derp-dump in the Yahoo! thread, but I guess the bathroom is here now.  The G as customer is only part of the reason the companies complied.  There was also the threat of criminal charges if they chose to litigate the general warrants in the regular federal courts.  All the big tech companies seem to have complied, but some resisted harder than others.

I posted this in the Yahoo! thread:

The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret.  It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal.  The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project.  We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.
 
2013-07-11 07:44:50 PM  

LordJiro: But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.


I've seen this argument in various forms many times here lately. I have no illusions that I am important enough to warrant (ha!) any nsa attention. But there have been way too many examples of government employees abusing their various powers that I don't trust them with all of this information. Which is why we have a 4th Amendment.
 
2013-07-11 07:46:26 PM  

machoprogrammer: LordJiro: Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer

This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.

It doesn't matter. The fact they are collecting the data is what matters. It would be like if the government put surveillance cameras in your house. Why would they watch you? You are just a regular citizen! It isn't like they could watch every house in the nation!

And anyone who thinks this isn't bad is likely a partisan hack, and since this is Fark, that should be expected.


Like I said, it IS bad. But it's very, VERY well established. We just didn't start complaining about it until recently. and even then, not *nearly* enough Americans give enough of a shiat to do anything about it...if there even *is* anything we can do about it.
 
2013-07-11 07:49:44 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.


That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.
 
Esn
2013-07-11 08:10:10 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.


Soo... a miniscule minority, then.
 
2013-07-11 08:12:41 PM  
So I guess it's pretty serious.
 
2013-07-11 08:18:14 PM  
FTA:  Microsoft also gave the FBI easier access to its cloud storage service SkyDrive and let the NSA have access to email on Outlook and Hotmail before it was encrypted, according to the paper.

You want to know why businesses that give a rat's rancid rectum aren't putting mission-critical data in the cloud? That's why. The push for cloud-based applications and cloud-based services glosses over the fact that your cloud providers may be handing the keys to your kingdom over to agencies unknown, without your knowledge or consent.

If you put data in the cloud, you lose complete control over it. Period. It doesn't matter how many assurances your cloud provider is going to give you - at the end of the day, you no longer have complete control over it. The cloud is great for anything you would display in front of your home. It's useless for anything else.

If you run a business and you're thinking about putting your mission-critical data in the cloud, think hard about that decision.
 
2013-07-11 08:23:00 PM  

NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.


About a week back, I ranted that the FISA court essentially forked our legal system - we have two legal systems now, one for public use and one for secret government use. This is an example of that forking. Anything FISA touches can only be handled through FISA, and instead of following legal precedent as was its original intent, FISA is now setting legal precedent, to change the way our legal system works in both branches.

If the FISA court has decided that the government can have your data, you may never know about it - but, if you find out by accident or through the actions of someone like Snowden, your only recourse is to take your claims to that same court, which will, of course, tell you to take a farking hike - but only after gagging you, so you can't tell anyone else what happened in that secret court.

Good luck with that whole "liberty" and "freedom" thing, folks, because it left the building.
 
2013-07-11 08:24:57 PM  

NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.


No it doesn't.  FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system.  It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.
 
2013-07-11 08:26:23 PM  

FormlessOne: NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.

About a week back, I ranted that the FISA court essentially forked our legal system - we have two legal systems now, one for public use and one for secret government use. This is an example of that forking. Anything FISA touches can only be handled through FISA, and instead of following legal precedent as was its original intent, FISA is now setting legal precedent, to change the way our legal system works in both branches.

If the FISA court has decided that the government can have your data, you may never know about it - but, if you find out by accident or through the actions of someone like Snowden, your only recourse is to take your claims to that same court, which will, of course, tell you to take a farking hike - but only after gagging you, so you can't tell anyone else what happened in that secret court.

Good luck with that whole "liberty" and "freedom" thing, folks, because it left the building.


Just like when a sealed warrant is issued against you by your local magistrate or district judge.  You won't necessarily find out about it until charges are brought and you get discovery.  There is nothing new or unique about the way FISA is operating.
 
2013-07-11 08:29:12 PM  

sprgrss: No it doesn't. FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system. It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.


It's a secret f*cking court that had never existed up until 40 years ago. How is that in line with our history? I'm perfectly fine with FISA as it existed before the passage of the USA Patriot Act. As has been asserted above, since they have expanded the court, it has only grown larger and less easy to control from the outside. It exists only to serve itself, there is no check on FISA. Can you appeal these rulings directly to the US Supreme Court? And, even if you could, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who controls the entire FISA court through his appointments.

How is that not an affront to our entire judicial system?
 
2013-07-11 08:36:58 PM  

NewportBarGuy: sprgrss: No it doesn't. FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system. It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.

It's a secret f*cking court that had never existed up until 40 years ago. How is that in line with our history? I'm perfectly fine with FISA as it existed before the passage of the USA Patriot Act. As has been asserted above, since they have expanded the court, it has only grown larger and less easy to control from the outside. It exists only to serve itself, there is no check on FISA. Can you appeal these rulings directly to the US Supreme Court? And, even if you could, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who controls the entire FISA court through his appointments.

How is that not an affront to our entire judicial system?


Special courts have existed since the time of the founding.  Furthermore, the idea that the Chief Justice wouldn't vote to overturn opinions of people he appointed is ludicrous.  That's like say because the Courts of Appeals appoints Bankruptcy Court Judges within their district the Courts of Appeal won't overturn opinions of the bankruptcy court judges within those districts or that the Chief Justice won't vote to overturn opinions of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation.
 
2013-07-11 08:59:50 PM  
This is NOT the change we were hoping for.

Microsoft/NSA

Microsoft/taxes

Taxes/IRS

Study it out.
 
2013-07-11 09:04:44 PM  

sprgrss: NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes:

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.


No it doesn't.  FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system.  It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.

You mean you think the FISA court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, like the Federal Circuit has over patent cases on appeal.  Oddly enough there does not seem to be anything in Section 1803 of the FIS Act describing a process by which someone like Microsoft ordered to cooperate pursuant to a FISA order may appeal said order to FISA.  There is a procedure for the G to appeal to a 3-judge review panel and then under seal to the Supreme Court if a FISA judge denies a request.
 
2013-07-11 09:12:07 PM  
I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?
 
2013-07-11 09:14:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is NOT the change we were hoping for.

Microsoft/NSA

Microsoft/taxes

Taxes/IRS

Study it out.


"We" as in the people who voted for Obama are happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress. We may not be happy with the law but its congress's job to revise it. That is a big change from the last administration that you blindly supported.

It's also woefully better than that yahoos you want to be president instead of Obama. The "change" you want from a McCain/Palin administration was for more rights taken away from brown people with more muslim country bombed and the "change" you wanted with a Romney/Ryan administration was for poor people to suffer more and rich people to have it even easier.

Sure it's not the "change" you wanted but most of are sure as farking hell happy that didn't happen.
 
2013-07-11 09:26:48 PM  

max_pooper: happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress


A warrant not based upon particularized suspicion is not constitutional.  I won't defend Congress but it seems many of them were taken in by complicated misrepresentations about the scope of the collection.  The ones who were fully briefed were prohibited from disclosing the scope of the collection.
 
2013-07-11 09:29:53 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: max_pooper: happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress

A warrant not based upon particularized suspicion is not constitutional.  I won't defend Congress but it seems many of them were taken in by complicated misrepresentations about the scope of the collection.  The ones who were fully briefed were prohibited from disclosing the scope of the collection.


According the federal judge that issused the warrant it is constitutional. Any the of FISA judges could reject a warrant on constitutional grounds. Not a single one has.
 
2013-07-11 09:30:48 PM  
I normally try an avoid politics threads, but I gotta chime in because this argument:

LordJiro: Bloody Templar:
...The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance...


is just as stupid as "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear."  I don't give a flipping fark if they think I'm important or not.  It is wrong for them to be collecting the information on normal citizens they are, period.  And besides, just because I (or you, or whoever) are not important to them now, doesn't mean we cant become so.  I've run for office locally, and who is to say that in the future, if i run against the wrong person, that information collected on me won't be used to kill my campaign?  Whoops, guess I'm acting all important and shouldn't even worry about it.
 
2013-07-11 09:35:47 PM  

max_pooper: According the federal judge that issused the warrant it is constitutional. Any the of FISA judges could reject a warrant on constitutional grounds. Not a single one has.


That's not true, but OK!

"with only 11 denials - a rejection rate of 0.03% of the total requests"

They do good work!
 
2013-07-11 09:41:26 PM  

thekingcobra: I normally try an avoid politics threads, but I gotta chime in because this argument:

LordJiro: Bloody Templar:
...The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance...

is just as stupid as "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear."  I don't give a flipping fark if they think I'm important or not.  It is wrong for them to be collecting the information on normal citizens they are, period.  And besides, just because I (or you, or whoever) are not important to them now, doesn't mean we cant become so.  I've run for office locally, and who is to say that in the future, if i run against the wrong person, that information collected on me won't be used to kill my campaign?  Whoops, guess I'm acting all important and shouldn't even worry about it.


Again, it *is* a bad thing that the government can collect this info. But it isn't new, and people who would run for office are in a tiny minority. People running against someone corrupt and powerful enough to use the NSA data are in an even smaller minority.

My point stands; for the vast, VAST majority of Americans, the government won't be reading your emails. They shouldn't even be collecting it, but they are, have been, and will continue to do so.
 
2013-07-11 09:42:25 PM  
There was a briefing a week or so ago for the TLAs on this stuff.  It will get worse.
 
2013-07-11 09:46:23 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: According the federal judge that issused the warrant it is constitutional. Any the of FISA judges could reject a warrant on constitutional grounds. Not a single one has.

That's not true, but OK!

"with only 11 denials - a rejection rate of 0.03% of the total requests"

They do good work!


Of the thousands of times FISA judges have awarded warrants, not a single time did they deem the law laying out the process as unconstitutional.

All the armchair federal judges in this thread are assuring everyone that this process is unconstitutional. If that's the case why is the branch of governement responsible for determing constitutionality not in agreement with all these farkers with GEDs in law?
 
2013-07-11 09:46:43 PM  

jjorsett: I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?


It was that time when saying "This is nothing new" became the semantic and moral equivalent of "I heartily endorse and approve of the NSA's actions" in the minds of about 50% of the Fark community.
 
2013-07-11 09:47:35 PM  
Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Paul Ryan, Pussy Riot, and Ryan Gosling are all the same person.
 
2013-07-11 09:50:14 PM  

LordJiro: thekingcobra: I normally try an avoid politics threads, but I gotta chime in because this argument:

LordJiro: Bloody Templar:
...The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance...

is just as stupid as "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear."  I don't give a flipping fark if they think I'm important or not.  It is wrong for them to be collecting the information on normal citizens they are, period.  And besides, just because I (or you, or whoever) are not important to them now, doesn't mean we cant become so.  I've run for office locally, and who is to say that in the future, if i run against the wrong person, that information collected on me won't be used to kill my campaign?  Whoops, guess I'm acting all important and shouldn't even worry about it.

Again, it *is* a bad thing that the government can collect this info. But it isn't new, and people who would run for office are in a tiny minority. People running against someone corrupt and powerful enough to use the NSA data are in an even smaller minority.

My point stands; for the vast, VAST majority of Americans, the government won't be reading your emails. They shouldn't even be collecting it, but they are, have been, and will continue to do so.


Your internet provider not only collects this information, they sell it to marketers.
 
2013-07-11 09:50:18 PM  
"Report: Microsoft taught NSA how to crack encrypted emails".  Stopped reading right there.  The stupid, it burns.

Is everything on outlook handed over to the NSA?  Probably.  Bruce Schneier recently pointed out that foreign users slightly outnumbered US users (but I'm sure this is changing fast), so the NSA could simply grab them all and claim that they have a >50% confidence of being non-US, thus legal.  Then since they couldn't prove that you would never commit a crime against the US, they could keep the email indefinitely.

MS taught the NSA... It should be noted that one of the random number generators used in windows uses elliptical curves.  Elliptical curves are famous for being useful for public key crypto, so anything that uses them is an ideal way to hide a back door (best guess is that there is no back door, but the random output just might be way lower than you would expect and the NSA knows the real probabilities.  Most recently released broken crypto comes in two forms: custom idiocy and bad random number generators.  There's nothing you can do about a coder who insists on rolling his own crypto (except googling the inevitable crack), but bad random number generators are even more insidious.  They will basically pass every unit test, verify perfectly against the spec, and generally act like completely secure cryptography.  Then you put it through diehard and find out that there are only 32bits worth of numbers you need to try to break your crypto...
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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