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.

(Tech Dirt)   NSA: We try to only spy on foreign targets, but get the occasional US citizen. Latest Leak: We tap into about 75% of US internet traffic and set our own filters with no oversight to worry about   (techdirt.com) divider line 322
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

4201 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 2:41 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 07:45:30 PM

Evil High Priest: BullBearMS: Clapper Admits He Lied to Congress in Letter Posted by Senator Wyden

Hilarious! Thanks.


Yeah, it's about as hilarious as the various right-wing blogs offering ironclad proof about how the administration "admitted" that they "lied" about Benghazi.
 
2013-08-21 07:46:12 PM

Evil High Priest: Gyrfalcon: The Muthaship: Maybe sadder than the fact that the government is illegally spying on innocent Americans en mass, is how many of those citizens are making excuses for them.

No, what I find sad, or perhaps astonishing, is how many of those citizens are carrying on as if this is something new and unusual.

And I find it sad that that is your focus. Let's take one more minute to dwell on this, and then move the fark along to the actual subject at hand.


We should probably just ignore the fact that the Obama administration has constantly lied and claimed they were doing no such thing right up until the point when whistle blowers proved them to be liars.

How dare anybody believe that lying ass Obama!?

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-08-21 08:06:44 PM

BullBearMS: Evil High Priest: BullBearMS: Clapper Admits He Lied to Congress in Letter Posted by Senator Wyden

Hilarious! Thanks.

Just doing my part against the forces of lies and misinformation.

/Hat tip


You have been killing this thread. I am in awe.
 
2013-08-21 08:15:18 PM
You can pretty much count on everything that people say as pure bullsh.
 
2013-08-21 08:36:52 PM

umad: You have been killing this thread. I am in awe.


Everyone's doing their part. Are you? The war against the Bill of Rights needs everyone's defense. At work, at home, in your community!

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

/Would you like to know more?
 
2013-08-21 08:37:17 PM

vpb: Headline: We tap into 75% of US internet traffic.

TFA: The system has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic

Having the capacity to do something is not the same thing as doing it.  We have the capacity to nuke Chicago, but that doesn't mean that we have already done it.

This sort of straw man is typical of these NSA "spying" stories.


You don't have to white knight the NSA so hard... I don't think it's going to sleep with you.
 
2013-08-21 08:41:17 PM

Outrageous Muff: However regulations say that all NSA collected data can not be used against a US citizen and that all dealings with citizens are handed over to the FBI who does get warrants. But don't let that keep you from your Jackbooted Governments Brown Shirt fantasies.


"They're not allowed to do that" isn't a particularly reassuring argument, especially when they have the ability to do something. They design, built and maintained a complex system, and now they're just waiting for the go-ahead to use it?
 
2013-08-21 08:47:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vpb: Headline: We tap into 75% of US internet traffic.

TFA: The system has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic

Having the capacity to do something is not the same thing as doing it.  We have the capacity to nuke Chicago, but that doesn't mean that we have already done it.

This sort of straw man is typical of these NSA "spying" stories.

I came in here to say this. Jesus christ, you people are tech-illiterate.


Says the guy that's never seen a government program or extension of centralized authority that he doesn't like.
 
2013-08-21 10:01:40 PM
 
2013-08-21 10:33:37 PM

Evil High Priest: robbiex0r: The problem isn't the government, it's the people who demand "safety" at any and all expense.

For eight years we had an administration screaming "You're all going to die tomorrow unless you give us everything we want!" while at the same time spoon-feeding our lame-ass media their scare stories of the day. This fear didn't bubble up from the people, it was carefully tended by the government.


But the "greatest nation in the world" the "home of the brave" bought it... They bought it all.
 
2013-08-21 10:44:05 PM

BullBearMS: Obama claimed he had his own secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that allowed him to spy on everyone.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators - Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado - went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.


I don't think your link supported your interpretation that Obama thought he could spy on everyone. I thought the article said that there was two uses of the section 215 orders from the FISA court - one obvious, and one that is "apparently not obvious from a plain text reading of the provision." While two senators are making a lot of noise,* it sounds like the surveillance is taking place under the oversight of the FISA court, which is a step up from how things were under Bush. Also note that these are supposed to only apply to "tangible things . . . that are deemed 'relevant' to a terrorism or espionage investigation." In other words, the NSA has to convince the FISA court that what they're after will help them in an investigation. Also, "terrorism or espionage" doesn't really make it seem like their primary focus is domestic.

*I don't know anything about these senators. Are they whackadoodles like Bachmann? Or pretty level-headed people?
 
2013-08-21 10:51:09 PM

This text is now purple: draypresct: midigod: The NSA themselves acknowledge thousands of those abuses.

From your link: "The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders."

I hate to tell you this, but if you look at any situation where people are collecting confidential data on you (hospitals, credit card companies, ISPs), you're going to see large numbers of violations. Any time you employ human beings to manage confidential data, there are going to be violations.

The question is what the institution is doing about it, and what other solutions are available.

Just out of curiosity - can anyone in this thread think of a solution? One where we collect all the intelligence we need? I don't think public oversight is realistic in this context - this stuff needs to be kept secret.

"Most"?

So some of those were with malice aforethought?


I don't know if it was malice, stupidity, or secret orders, but violating a court order or unauthorized access of data on green-card holders are pretty serious, and I'm hoping heads rolled for those. I also don't know how serious the accidental violations were.

But if you think that an entire institution should be shut down whenever there are violations like this, there wouldn't be a hospital left operating.
 
2013-08-21 11:07:29 PM

draypresct: BullBearMS: Obama claimed he had his own secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that allowed him to spy on everyone.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators - Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado - went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.

I don't think your link supported your interpretation that Obama thought he could spy on everyone. I thought the article said that there was two uses of the section 215 orders from the FISA court - one obvious, and one that is "apparently not obvious from a plain text reading of the provision." While two senators are making a lot of noise,* it sounds like the surveillance is taking place under the oversight of the FISA court, which is a step up from how things were under Bush. Also note that these are supposed to only apply to "tangible things . . . that are deemed 'relevant' to a terrorism or espionage investigation." In other words, the NSA has to convince the FISA court that what they're after will help them in an investigation. Also, "terrorism or espionage" doesn't really make it seem like their primary focus is domestic.

*I don't know anything about these senators. Are they whackadoodles like Bachmann? Or pretty level-headed people?


Obama has since been forced to release his secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which indeed has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual text of the act.

The head of the FISA court has publicly said that they have no way to verify whatever the executive branch tells them, so that's not oversight in any way, shape or form.

Either Wyden or Udall would make much better presidents than anyone we've had in office over the past two decades.
 
2013-08-21 11:31:46 PM

When a spy operation says it only has the power to overreach by 75% under the strictest of conditions, what it really means is its already been overreaching by 120% for the last few years and have probably done some horrible stuff with our data along the way.



/Some undertrained desk jockey is living the Orwellian dream right now.
 
2013-08-22 01:36:05 AM

Outrageous Muff: Do you tinfoil-wearing internet pirvacy people understand the logistical problems that arise from recording that much data? Much less the time and manpower it would take to look at at and catalog it for anything?



http://www.forbes.com/pictures/feki45jgmj/colorful-pipes-in-the-dal les -3/
 
2013-08-22 04:05:29 AM
Technologically speaking, tapping roughly 100% of the domestic internet would be...well not easy, but doable.  Storing all the relevant bits for long periods of time, is again, utterly doable.

Ultimately, pretty much the entire domestic internet goes through a relatively small number of backbone lines, and 100% of all international internet goes through one of 4 places.

From a "could the government be doing this?" perspective.  Yes, it wouldn't even be that hard.  It would cost a lot.  But "a lot" doesn't even register on government scale spending.  Hell, google is doing most of the work for them.

I could explain in great technical detail how to go about setting a system like this up, and how to filter the results and store only the parts worth keeping, and how to build out the data centers, and what kind of hardware you'd need.  But why bother?  This isn't a technical issue.  It's a political one.

Either you realize that the US government (and many others) has been doing this sort of "monitoring" since AT LEAST the 1950's, or you are brain dead.

The only thing that has changed is that instead of ignoring most of the chatter, they are storing it for later retrieval, because the means to do so now exist, and are relatively cheap.
 
2013-08-22 11:55:57 AM

BullBearMS: Obama has since been forced to release his secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which indeed has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual text of the act.


I've done a (very) little research on this, and I have to agree that they've strained the definition of "relevance".

I guess my only response on this is that we should make certain to not conflate collecting the "details" (time of call & phone numbers involved) with collecting the content of the calls. I'm not trying to minimize the fact that the "details" are a source of a considerable amount of information themselves, but (despite the jokes made) I don't believe that there's been any serious suggestion that they're data-mining the content of the calls.

The head of the FISA court has publicly said that they have no way to verify whatever the executive branch tells them, so that's not oversight in any way, shape or form.

I agree that FISA has no independent data-gathering arm to verify what NSA tells it about its activities. Neither does Congress, really. This is true for most government agencies - do you think that Congress pays an independent contractor to validate what the Dept. of Agriculture reports? There is oversight; it's just not multiply redundant.

If there was no oversight whatsoever, then the NSA would have had no motivation to keep track of the 3000+ (mostly accidental) violations that have occurred.

Either Wyden or Udall would make much better presidents than anyone we've had in office over the past two decades.

Having looked at their records a bit, I'll agree that they both seem to have good qualifications and records - nowhere near Bachmann.

By the way - while I've concentrated on the aspects of your responses that I've disagreed with, I've liked your posts. They've been informative and have forced me to try to educate myself to write responses.
 
2013-08-22 12:40:51 PM

draypresct: I don't believe that there's been any serious suggestion that they're data-mining the content of the calls.


As of yesterday, a lawsuit forced them to release more details and it turns out that the FISA court biatch slapped them for collecting much more than metadata.

A federal judge sharply rebuked the National Security Agency in 2011 for repeatedly misleading the court that oversees its surveillance on domestic soil, including a program that is collecting tens of thousands of domestic e-mails and other Internet communications of Americans each year, according to a secret ruling made public on Wednesday.

The 85-page ruling by Judge John D. Bates, then serving as chief judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, involved an N.S.A. program that systematically searches the contents of Americans' international Internet communications, without a warrant, in a hunt for discussions about foreigners who have been targeted for surveillance.

The Justice Department had told Judge Bates that N.S.A. officials had discovered that the program had also been gathering domestic messages for three years. Judge Bates found that the agency had violated the Constitution and declared the problems part of a pattern of misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret court.


So yes, they were collecting communications and not just metadata, and they weren't just lying to us about it. They were also lying to the FISA court they claim has the power to act as a check on them.

draypresct: If there was no oversight whatsoever, then the NSA would have had no motivation to keep track of the 3000+ (mostly accidental) violations that have occurred.


Obama has claimed that Congress and the FISA courts serve as a check to his actions.

The FISA court has said they cannot verify anything they are told, but they already know they have been subjected to a pattern of deception.

Congress has also called bullshiat. Only members of the intelligence committee who are prevented from discussing what they know had any idea what was going on.

The author of the Patriot Act has been particularly outspoken of late.

As I have said numerous times, I did not know the administration was using the Patriot Act for bulk collection, and neither did a majority of my colleagues. Regardless, the suggestion that the administration can violate the law because Congress failed to object is outrageous. But let them be on notice: I am objecting right now.

draypresct: By the way - while I've concentrated on the aspects of your responses that I've disagreed with, I've liked your posts. They've been informative and have forced me to try to educate myself to write responses.


Well, thanks. This is a very important issue, and we all should be paying attention to it.
 
2013-08-22 01:02:29 PM

BullBearMS: So yes, they were collecting communications and not just metadata, and they weren't just lying to us about it. They were also lying to the FISA court they claim has the power to act as a check on them.


Yep, that's what the story says. Dammit, NSA, I'm disappointed.

BullBearMS: This is a very important issue, and we all should be paying attention to it.


Yes, I have to say I hope the senate keeps the pressure on. There needs to be some serious housecleaning.
 
2013-08-22 01:22:01 PM
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I know at this point it is basically meaningless, but there it is.
 
2013-08-22 03:04:07 PM
You kids and your silly "privacy" and "freedom" illusions are so cute.

If you truly value your privacy that much, smash your smartphone, disconnect your computer and never leave your house.

thebrainworkofanidealist.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-22 03:20:38 PM

STORAGE JARS: If you truly value your privacy that much, smash your smartphone, disconnect your computer and never leave your house.


Or we could still allow people to make their own choices on what to share through social media, hold corporations responsible for following their own published privacy policy as well as the law,and force the government to stay within the bounds of the Constitution.
 
Displayed 22 of 322 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report