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 Blaze)   Latest Snowden bombshell; Guess what happens when you have a room full of 20 somethings looking into everyone's personal data and they come across your secret nude or sex pics?   (theblaze.com) divider line 152
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

5074 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jul 2014 at 12:45 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-18 04:52:10 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: /NSA interns. What do they put on their resume?


Same thing they tell their mothers. They were in prison for those years.
 
2014-07-18 05:03:17 PM  
As long as you don't have pedo or animal stuff on your system, then you won't be remembered.

Yes, they look on your stuff...but if you've got clearance...as long as you don't have anything that is criminal or leaves you vulnerable to blackmail and such, then no worries.


Been thru it, no issues.
Seen it, it's typical college boy attitude...it's snickered at and moved on.
 
2014-07-18 05:07:18 PM  

Mrbogey: On January 21st 2009, tens of millions of civil liberty concern trolls vanished. Never to be seen again.


You mean you retired 99,999,984 of your alts?
 
2014-07-18 05:13:18 PM  
Oh, Snowden, why should I believe you? You're not exactly the most dependable guy around.
 
2014-07-18 05:27:26 PM  

for good or for awesome: tirob: Someone explain to me how a dirty picture of yourself that you post on Facebook is "secret."

All they where doing was browsing facebook?   What the hell are we all so excited about then?


I have no idea where the NSA got its mitts on all those dirty pictures.  What I *do* know is that if you take an electronic picture of yourself and send it out into the cyberworld, it sometimes gets forwarded (if it's in an email), or copied and posted elsewhere (if it's on Facebook) or otherwise discovered and reproduced ad infinitum.  In other words, I believe that your expectation of privacy, to use a Fourth Amendment term, in such pictures is limited.  Don't want any nude likenesses of yourself used as fap material by security services?  Don't take pictures of yourself, and don't have pictures taken of yourself, and then send them over the wires.  Different result, of course, if someone takes filthy pictures of you without your consent and then sends such pictures into cyberspace; no question in my mind that in such a case you have an absolutely legitimate privacy-related beef.
 
2014-07-18 05:48:43 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: So, somebody wants to see my penis?  No?
Damn....


Yes. And I mean that.
 
2014-07-18 05:52:41 PM  
attention whore says what?
 
2014-07-18 05:57:08 PM  

Mrbogey: On January 21st 2009, tens of millions of civil liberty concern trolls vanished. Never to be seen again.


FEMA camps.
 
2014-07-18 05:59:19 PM  

Killer Cars: I'm more ashamed of my general browsing history than anything else. I could stand on a street corner holding up a cell phone pic of my penis and feel less embarrassed.


That's why we use handles on FARK.
 
2014-07-18 06:04:53 PM  
photos.imageevent.com
 
2014-07-18 06:38:08 PM  

Moopy Mac: US Intelligence Agencies have to be the most incompetent agencies in the US governmental system (and that is saying something). Hell, just since WWII they were responsible for the Islamist government in Iran, dropped the ball on 9/11 and are mostly responsible for 2/3rds of the Western Hemisphere hating this country. So unconstitutionally acquiring nude pictures and sending them around is probably actually an improvement.



In fairness, the intelligence services were screaming that something was about to go down prior to 9/11 but we had a President that didn't think Al Qaeda was a threat because that was a Clinton thing so haha fark Clinton.
 
2014-07-18 06:52:22 PM  
Well, I see the "They fix the cable..." mission statement is already accomplished.
 
m00
2014-07-18 07:23:03 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: If you send a junk pic, just assume that it's going to go viral. if you're cool with that, flick away. If you're not, then you're rolling the dice.


Except when they dig through your private email, and harddrive. Or they remotely turn on your laptop's integrated camera, or your phone's camera, or your kinect, etc, etc and record you having sex with your wife or girlfriend.

I suppose in your world "doing private things in the privacy of your home" is rolling the dice. I guess you're a Lutheran, huh?
 
2014-07-18 09:06:54 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: What - did the Obvious tag call in sick or something?


Some of Snowden's revelations were shocking and appalling.

This was not one of them.
 
2014-07-18 09:08:53 PM  

m00: Except when they dig through your private email, and harddrive. Or they remotely turn on your laptop's integrated camera, or your phone's camera, or your kinect, etc, etc and record you having sex with your wife or girlfriend.


I'm only telling you this because I care. There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.
 
m00
2014-07-18 09:15:51 PM  

Without Fail: m00: Except when they dig through your private email, and harddrive. Or they remotely turn on your laptop's integrated camera, or your phone's camera, or your kinect, etc, etc and record you having sex with your wife or girlfriend.

I'm only telling you this because I care. There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.



You don't think this is happening?

I mean honestly. We know that NSA agents are using their powers to snoop into the private lives and emails of people they know, or the random barista girl they have a crush on.

We know its possible to remotely turn on a webcam, and there are out-of-the-box solutions 14 year old script kiddies use to do this (it's called ratting). They just need to get the user to remotely install some infected executable.

We also know the NSA can remotely install whatever it wants on your machine. This is why it keeps zero-day exploits to itself, this is why it strong-arms legitimate software developers to insert back-doors, and so forth.


So what, the NSA has this capability but agents are simply refraining from doing it? Seriously, that seems likely to you?
 
2014-07-18 09:17:34 PM  

m00: Without Fail: m00: Except when they dig through your private email, and harddrive. Or they remotely turn on your laptop's integrated camera, or your phone's camera, or your kinect, etc, etc and record you having sex with your wife or girlfriend.

I'm only telling you this because I care. There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.


You don't think this is happening?

I mean honestly. We know that NSA agents are using their powers to snoop into the private lives and emails of people they know, or the random barista girl they have a crush on.

We know its possible to remotely turn on a webcam, and there are out-of-the-box solutions 14 year old script kiddies use to do this (it's called ratting). They just need to get the user to remotely install some infected executable.

We also know the NSA can remotely install whatever it wants on your machine. This is why it keeps zero-day exploits to itself, this is why it strong-arms legitimate software developers to insert back-doors, and so forth.


So what, the NSA has this capability but agents are simply refraining from doing it? Seriously, that seems likely to you?


I was on Risperdal for a while when I was having problems with paranoia and delusional thinking. It's got some side effects, but worth it to think clearly. You ought to ask your doctor.
 
2014-07-18 09:18:24 PM  

m00: So what, the NSA has this capability but agents are simply refraining from doing it? Seriously, that seems likely to you?


We also know that the CIA has the capability to assassinate people.
They seem to refrain from doing this to Americans.
 
m00
2014-07-18 09:20:29 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I was on Risperdal for a while when I was having problems with paranoia and delusional thinking. It's got some side effects, but worth it to think clearly. You ought to ask your doctor.



Instead of being an ass, you can explain to me the flaw in my logic.

I like you, and I appreciate your posts. But I wonder in 5 years when somebody leaks the NSA has been doing this along (and there's a two-term Democrat in the White House), you'll be part of the Fark "it's no big deal / why is this news / you'd be stupid to think it wasn't happening" brigade.
 
m00
2014-07-18 09:25:48 PM  

Without Fail: m00: So what, the NSA has this capability but agents are simply refraining from doing it? Seriously, that seems likely to you?

We also know that the CIA has the capability to assassinate people.
They seem to refrain from doing this to Americans.



Assassinations generally leave a body.

But the CIA claims the right to assassinate Americans, and they have in at least one instance. That ship has sailed.
 
m00
2014-07-18 09:26:30 PM  

m00: 5


7
 
2014-07-18 10:02:02 PM  

m00: Without Fail: m00: Except when they dig through your private email, and harddrive. Or they remotely turn on your laptop's integrated camera, or your phone's camera, or your kinect, etc, etc and record you having sex with your wife or girlfriend.

I'm only telling you this because I care. There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.


You don't think this is happening?

I mean honestly. We know that NSA agents are using their powers to snoop into the private lives and emails of people they know, or the random barista girl they have a crush on.

We know its possible to remotely turn on a webcam, and there are out-of-the-box solutions 14 year old script kiddies use to do this (it's called ratting). They just need to get the user to remotely install some infected executable.

We also know the NSA can remotely install whatever it wants on your machine. This is why it keeps zero-day exploits to itself, this is why it strong-arms legitimate software developers to insert back-doors, and so forth.


So what, the NSA has this capability but agents are simply refraining from doing it? Seriously, that seems likely to you?


I'll bet they're watching you right now.
 
2014-07-18 10:02:49 PM  

m00: Gyrfalcon: I was on Risperdal for a while when I was having problems with paranoia and delusional thinking. It's got some side effects, but worth it to think clearly. You ought to ask your doctor.


Instead of being an ass, you can explain to me the flaw in my logic.

I like you, and I appreciate your posts. But I wonder in 5 years when somebody leaks the NSA has been doing this along (and there's a two-term Democrat in the White House), you'll be part of the Fark "it's no big deal / why is this news / you'd be stupid to think it wasn't happening" brigade.


The flaw in your logic is that IF the NSA is in fact spying on people, switching on their webcams remotely, and digging through their hard drives covertly in the manner you suggest (and that's an if that you know I don't subscribe to anyway [and which can be circumvented just by turning your computer off when you leave it]) they SURE as SHIAT are not doing so just to rummage through people's dirty pictures and watch you having sex with your girlfriend.

The flip side of paranoia is narcissism: They are watching me because I am so goddamn important that they MUST be watching me. I suppose if you are doing anti-government things (or things you think are anti-government) you might have some marginal reason to believe that you are being monitored. But that the NSA has so much extra time and personnel that they are switching on m00's webcam to catch him getting a bj from his bored girlfriend? Because--why, exactly?

If you can't see the extreme flaw in your logic, my dear, then you really ARE paranoid.
 
2014-07-18 10:27:08 PM  
The NSA isn't remotely turning on your webcams, but they are reading your emails/texts, listening to your phone calls, etc...

Well, maybe not you in particular, but they are regular American citizens that have no reason to be under surveillance. It has been going on for a long while, too, and it needs to stop
 
2014-07-18 10:28:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: If you can't see the extreme flaw in your logic, my dear, then you really ARE paranoid.


It's pretty funny how those who believe that government can't do anything right, also believe that they are covertly watching us undetected.

/Just who is flying those black helicopters?
 
2014-07-18 11:18:15 PM  
Gyrfalcon:
If you can't see the extreme flaw in your logic, my dear, then you really ARE paranoid.

Do you see the extreme flaw in your logic?

You mention one and only one instance of how someone might get nude pictures.  There are several others I can think of without even really trying.  Can you?

Sure, the fix for all possible circumstances is "don't be in a position where nude photos can be taken of you and/or shared with the unintended audience", but a better fix would (in my opinion) "don't fund an organization devoted to storing and cataloging all available information regardless of expectation of privacy".

Which position is right?  That all depends on what kind of America you want to live in, I suppose.
 
2014-07-18 11:22:25 PM  
You know, bullshiat.  First, if you post or send naked pictures of yourself that are identifiable, you are a stupid whore.  Second, Bullshiat.  Possibly there are one or two perverts who might do this kind of thing, but so farking what? You can't take that kind of thing home with you, no farking way.
 
2014-07-19 12:16:54 AM  

Tourney3p0: Gyrfalcon:
If you can't see the extreme flaw in your logic, my dear, then you really ARE paranoid.

Do you see the extreme flaw in your logic?

You mention one and only one instance of how someone might get nude pictures.  There are several others I can think of without even really trying.  Can you?

Sure, the fix for all possible circumstances is "don't be in a position where nude photos can be taken of you and/or shared with the unintended audience", but a better fix would (in my opinion) "don't fund an organization devoted to storing and cataloging all available information regardless of expectation of privacy".

Which position is right?  That all depends on what kind of America you want to live in, I suppose.


Oh no, there are plenty of ways the NSA might get hold of nude pictures of someone; my comment was specifically addressed to m00's fear that the NSA was turning on webcams with the intent of watching people have sex and switching on their computers and going through their files solely to find their OWN nude selfies.

Don't you think that BOTH fixes in tandem would be the best fix of all?
 
2014-07-19 12:17:19 AM  
So we're still going to pretend that anything Snowden says is either A) not from his career as a minor thief and B) already known?  Got it, keep on with the hero worship.
 
2014-07-19 12:18:32 AM  

Tourney3p0: Gyrfalcon:
If you can't see the extreme flaw in your logic, my dear, then you really ARE paranoid.

Do you see the extreme flaw in your logic?

You mention one and only one instance of how someone might get nude pictures.  There are several others I can think of without even really trying.  Can you?

Sure, the fix for all possible circumstances is "don't be in a position where nude photos can be taken of you and/or shared with the unintended audience", but a better fix would (in my opinion) "don't fund an organization devoted to storing and cataloging all available information regardless of expectation of privacy".

Which position is right?  That all depends on what kind of America you want to live in, I suppose.


Do you seriously believe the NSA is out to get your nekked pictures?  Really?
 
m00
2014-07-19 12:31:58 AM  

Gyrfalcon: m00: Gyrfalcon: I was on Risperdal for a while when I was having problems with paranoia and delusional thinking. It's got some side effects, but worth it to think clearly. You ought to ask your doctor.


Instead of being an ass, you can explain to me the flaw in my logic.

I like you, and I appreciate your posts. But I wonder in 5 years when somebody leaks the NSA has been doing this along (and there's a two-term Democrat in the White House), you'll be part of the Fark "it's no big deal / why is this news / you'd be stupid to think it wasn't happening" brigade.

The flaw in your logic is that IF the NSA is in fact spying on people, switching on their webcams remotely, and digging through their hard drives covertly in the manner you suggest (and that's an if that you know I don't subscribe to anyway [and which can be circumvented just by turning your computer off when you leave it]) they SURE as SHIAT are not doing so just to rummage through people's dirty pictures and watch you having sex with your girlfriend.

The flip side of paranoia is narcissism: They are watching me because I am so goddamn important that they MUST be watching me. I suppose if you are doing anti-government things (or things you think are anti-government) you might have some marginal reason to believe that you are being monitored. But that the NSA has so much extra time and personnel that they are switching on m00's webcam to catch him getting a bj from his bored girlfriend? Because--why, exactly?

If you can't see the extreme flaw in your logic, my dear, then you really ARE paranoid.



I never said they were watching me. One of the nice things about the NSA's "lets get the hackstack" approach is that we're all needles and the chance of any one person being improperly surveilled for voyeuristic reasons (or really, any reason) is extremely low. Apparently anyone who googles "encrypted email" is now on a list that warrants further investigation. That has to be a pretty big list. This comes up every few years -- under Bush, I think people who googled "terrorism" got put on a list. So it's a pretty big haystack.

But you should read up on ratting where basically young men with only moderate computer skills infect other people's computers to spy on them. Then they capture video of women changing somewhere in the vicinity of their webcam and post it to forums. Seriously, go read that link. This isn't like some small isolated thing, there have been estimates by legitimate cyber-security analysts that millions of computers in the US are infected with remote access tools. This is an actual thing.

And we're not talking about NSA professionals here, we're talking about bored teenagers and college kids looking for a thrill. But if the Snowden leaks have revealed anything it's that a non-trivial amount of NSA professionals happen to be bored young men looking for a thrill.

Fortunately I'm hot girl in her teens/20s, so I'm certainly safe. My biggest crime is trolling people I don't like on Fark (as I said, I appreciate your posts so you're not in that category :p ) But that's not the point.

The NSA (and really, most of the government spy/security agencies) have demonstrated they simply can't be trusted with power. They abuse it.  So my contention is with posters who scoff that the NSA's "nude pic circulation" that Snowden is talking about is restricted to people who put pictures of themselves on the Internet. Especially because we also know that NSA agents have already been revealed to monitor phone calls of their girlfriends and so forth. Unless you think Snowden is lying.

So clearly of course the NSA is hijacking webcams and digging through harddrives when they feel like it. Fortunately the chance of this happening to you, all things being equal, is .001% or something like that. And the only question is, how often does a random NSA agent feel like it?

If you think I'm completely nuts for believing this, fine. But again consider that:

1) They obviously have the capability. There's no technical hurdle.
2) NSA employees are already snooping for um.. non-professional reasons (Snowden is telling the truth)
 
m00
2014-07-19 12:34:02 AM  

m00: Fortunately I'm hot girl in her teens/20s, so I'm certainly safe.


*cough* not not not not not
 
2014-07-19 01:33:00 AM  

Mrbogey: On January 21st 2009, tens of millions of civil liberty concern trolls vanished. Never to be seen again.


and ten million more rose up to take their place and fly gadsden flags
 
2014-07-19 01:34:53 AM  

m00: If you think I'm completely nuts for believing this, fine. But again consider that:

1) They obviously have the capability. There's no technical hurdle.
2) NSA employees are already snooping for um.. non-professional reasons (Snowden is telling the truth)


I don't question the capability. I just question the resource allocation. If they're already reading through everyone's emails, scanning everyone's files, listening to everyone's phone calls, monitoring everyone's credit card transactions, and keeping track of everyone's Google searches, when do they have time to watch everyone's webcams when they're having sex, and more importantly, who is doing all the watching?

How many people work for NSA? Everyone?
 
m00
2014-07-19 01:49:53 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I don't question the capability. I just question the resource allocation. If they're already reading through everyone's emails, scanning everyone's files, listening to everyone's phone calls, monitoring everyone's credit card transactions, and keeping track of everyone's Google searches, when do they have time to watch everyone's webcams when they're having sex, and more importantly, who is doing all the watching?

How many people work for NSA? Everyone?


I'm not sure this is intended to be a strawman, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :)

Because the NSA isn't reading everyone's emails, etc. What they are doing is automatically collecting them (from people who google search for "encrypted email"), and storing them in giant enormous data-centers worth billions upon billions of dollars. The sizes are staggering. I don't even think there's a word for the amount disk space they have.

They then use various programs and actually some really smart technical solutions to scan the sheer volume of data for flags. And they do all sorts of metrics. Like if someone on your linked-in account has sent an email to a person suspected of being a terrorist within the last 6 months that's a +3.2 to your score, but if you google searched for "terrorism" within 2 days of also tweeting a keyword from a different list, it's +.32. And then if anyone gets over 20.34 well then NSA puts it in a different pile. If a given person or incident gets enough flags or a high enough score, somebody manually looks it, probably gets a warrant from a FISA court and digs deeper into that person. That's what the NSA is legally doing.

But this has nothing to do with Agent Merv turning on the webcam of some girl from facebook he thinks is hot at 6:30pm from the office after work, because what else is he going to do on a Tuesday night.
 
m00
2014-07-19 02:37:01 AM  
Again, Gryfalcon the NSA isn't running some Soviet-style operation here where phone calls are randomly monitored by some human.

Instead, based on the Snowden leaks they appear to be interested in a building a very large and extremely sophisticated map of keywords (unfortunately, some very common words are on that list) and connections up to 3 degrees from individuals that are already suspected of being a nexus point. It's a very large and very complex graph problem, and it spans all sorts of communication methods from chat logs of video games to phone calls to emails to IMs to message-board pms. And the collection of all this is presumably automated. Then a different program can use edge weights and graph traversals to uncover new nexus points (meaning, a person the code decides warrants further investigation). I would assume they have several different models running simultaneously that operate on different principles, and seeing where they agree -- it's what I would do. From a computer science perspective, it's a surprisingly sensible way of identifying targets because the code is uncovering connections and finding correlations (and probably generating the keyword lists) so in theory its free from human bias.

Another beauty of this approach is that knowledge of the system won't really prevent an actual terrorist from being caught, assuming they aren't using communication methods outside of the NSA's scope (which is why encrypted email was such a big deal -- it was a big dark spot in the map).

A further point is that this approach is obviously only effective if the NSA captures some minimal threshhold of data. Just like medical insurance needs healthy people signed up in order to work, the NSA needs the data of innocent people so that the guilty ones are easier to spot.

The real problem from a civil liberties standpoint is its also a very large hammer and it flags a lot of people who presumably did nothing wrong, and never intended to do anything wrong. They were just some strange edge-case flagged by code for randomly google searching unrelated keywords (like maybe terrorists really like Dr. Pepper and the algorithm happens to note this odd correlation). And then they were unlucky enough to be 3 degrees away on social media/email contacts from someone already flagged by the code as moderately suspicious. Next step is a FISA warrant is obtained, and an actual NSA agent gets involved. It's perfectly legal (at least, justice dept. lawyers claim its legal) but I tend to think it at least violates the spirit of the 4th amendment.

But again, NSA agents probably don't work more than the typical government week. And it's not like they need legions of agents to do this. Just some really clever PhDs in computer science, some competent programmers, enough money to pay for the hardware, and enough agents to investigate the cases flagged by the code. There are probably busy days and slow days like any other job, and if Snowden's allegations are true the real issue is that nobody is stopping Agent Merv from turning on people's webcams for shiats and giggles.
 
2014-07-19 03:56:20 AM  

m00: There are probably busy days and slow days like any other job, and if Snowden's allegations are true the real issue is that nobody is stopping Agent Merv from turning on people's webcams for shiats and giggles.


Nobody ever was, though. But then, that's been an issue since cable TV was invented, you know that, right? Coaxial cable has always been capable of 2-way transmission, and instant-on TVs were around when I was a wee lass.

And while I agree 110% that there must and should be brakes on the government and that data collection for collection's sake is bad and wrong; you have to see that all this is just not a problem if you don't leave your webcam on in the same room where you  have your sex.

It's not a requirement in your life that you have your webcam on 24/7 and expect others not to watch you. For instance, I have a webcam on my laptop, it came with the damn thing. Anyone who chooses to "turn it on" as you say, will get a lovely image of the back side of a piece of electrical tape even if the cover is up; at night and when I'm not using it, my computer is closed. I do this not from fear of "the government" but because if "the government" can hack my computer SO CAN ANYONE ELSE and they're the ones I'm worried about watching me, not random government spies who may or may not use the data they find.

You ever hear "With great power comes great responsibility"? The power to do whatever you want is a great one. With it comes the responsibility to guard it and use it wisely. People are very good at doing whatever they want; but they are not so good, I've noticed, at guarding and using it wisely. On the contrary, the expectation nowadays is that each individual person should be able to do what they want WITHOUT any thought to the consequences--not just to others, but to themselves. "But I should be able to post nude selfies/keep my webcam on around the clock/visit kiddie porn, terrorist sites, and Nigerian banks/announce my opinions about legitimate rape, attractive and successful African-Americans and murdered previable persons and not have any repercussions! It's YOUR responsibility to pretend I did not say/do those things!"

Except that in modern society, it is not. If anyone can turn on my webcam, it's not only my duty to try to stop them, it is ALSO my responsibility to make sure that, if they do, they see nothing. Just as while I have the right to keep my windows open and walk about the house naked, it is my duty to both vote for the enforcement of peeping-tom laws AND to keep my drapes drawn if I wish to remain un-peeped-upon. So far in this debate, people are great at wanting the government to stop looking at us, but not so good at taking even the most basic precautions to stop giving them anything to look AT.
 
2014-07-19 04:32:05 AM  

Killer Cars: I'm more ashamed of my general browsing history than anything else. I could stand on a street corner holding up a cell phone pic of my penis and feel less embarrassed.


So am I, but  http://www.boohbah.tv/zone.html is free and drugs cost money. So in my cache it sits.
 
m00
2014-07-19 04:33:16 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Anyone who chooses to "turn it on" as you say, will get a lovely image of the back side of a piece of electrical tape even if the cover is up; at night and when I'm not using it, my computer is closed.


I do this too, but I thought if I admitted it you'd call me paranoid. :p

Gyrfalcon: "But I should be able to post nude selfies/keep my webcam on around the clock/visit kiddie porn, terrorist sites, and Nigerian banks/announce my opinions about legitimate rape, attractive and successful African-Americans and murdered previable persons and not have any repercussions! It's YOUR responsibility to pretend I did not say/do those things!"


But that's not really what we're talking about. Because terrorists have learned not to say suspicious things, which is a real challenge for our security agencies. What we're talking about literally is mapping esoteric connections and correlations. The "Terrorists are 1.2% more likely to drink Dr Pepper" and "5.6% more likely to google search about encryption" and "have a 3rd degree connection through some social media site or email contact list to a suspicious person" problem -- legitimate correlations that can be uncovered by extensive data-mining. You might add all those weird little fractional correlations up and statistically speaking have a possible terrorist, but it's nothing any rational person would think of as evidence.

I mean, according to the Snowden leaks if you say "Osama" in an email or text message, that's a hit. The system flags that. I'm sure terrorists do use that word more than non-terrorists, but that doesn't mean it's fair to open an investigation into the fark poster that ironically misspells Obama's name in every political thread.

And this is just the "legal" stuff. The stuff the NSA is doing which is illegal by it's own rules is even more appalling. I find the whole thing very concerning, and I suppose it shouldn't -- but it does -- bother me when my fellow voters see no problem or otherwise make excuses. Like "oh you're on the Internet, you expect privacy you fool?" I expect that my government's security apparatus refrains from systematically abusing its powers, and when it does I also expect my fellow Americans to feel the slightest bit out outrage.

Maybe I am crazy.
 
2014-07-19 05:15:09 AM  
Not clicking a blaze link, but from the sound of things we ALREADY knew this.  We had reports of NSA agents spying on and stalking their girlfriends and exes because they have shiat oversight and a hidden paper-trail.
 
2014-07-19 08:47:05 AM  
Anybody want to guess when m00 is turning 18 and can vote? I'm guessing 2017.
 
2014-07-19 09:05:14 AM  

dennysgod: Since it's coming from The Blaze you know it's totally true.


I want to fark her silly.
 
2014-07-19 09:06:06 AM  

Jackpot777:


She can also ride my face like a mechanical bull.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-19 09:11:22 AM  
/NSA interns. What do they put on their resume?

I have seen a resume from before people could officially say NSA. He worked for "U.S. Department of Defense" at Fort Meade, Maryland.
 
2014-07-19 11:35:22 AM  
But hey, all those nude selfies are just metadata selfies, right?

/Right?
 
2014-07-19 11:51:20 AM  

meat0918: The same thing the computer repair shop does with your nudie photos?

I can guarantee the boys at Geek Squad of Terabytes of other people's porn.


Wait...are you saying they're DOWN with OPP?
 
2014-07-19 11:54:03 AM  

surewewang: incendi: TV's Vinnie: with high security clearance

The requirements are basically "Don't have a significant criminal record, excessive debt, excessive foreign contact, or a drug problem".

There's also "don't be a closet super-pervert", but it's okay if you're relatively public/not embarrassed about your perversions.

Any more stringent and you start running out of qualified candidates pretty quickly. They can't do everything they need to do with Yankee White types.

This.  I pretty much just had to explain that I stopped wake-n-bake after getting out of college and now that I worked "here" i didn't do drugs anymore.  Just had to speak with an FBI agent about my drug history which was really just weed.  After I had that interview, my clearance went through.  Shiat, the defense contractor i worked at had known alcoholics with TS that would get smashed during lunch working there.  People would go to bars, strip clubs.  The TV shows with any gov agent showing everybody as boy scouts are just completely obnoxious.


This is apropos of nothing in your post, but I feel it must be said:

"Can wang."
 
2014-07-19 12:02:55 PM  

Mrbogey: On January 21st 2009, tens of millions of civil liberty concern trolls vanished. Never to be seen again.


Wow. You literally haven't been paying attention, like, at all.
 
2014-07-19 12:23:42 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Mrbogey: On January 21st 2009, tens of millions of civil liberty concern trolls vanished. Never to be seen again.

Wow. You literally haven't been paying attention, like, at all.


Uh huh... sure I haven't.

Face it, the Bush criticisms were mostly partisan. Now, that's not to say all of it was partisan. Some Obama supporters genuinely believed he would roll back the PATRIOT Act. The ones who stick by him to this day though were lying out their asses about every bit of concern they had about gov't abuse by Bush. The second a Dem got in office the outrage became a trickle and got washed away mostly by blaming it all on Bush. Obama reauthorized the PATRIOT Act... all Bush's fault. Obama expands NSA monitoring... Bush's fault.

The Dems are mostly just concern trolls when it comes to civil liberties. End of story.
 
2014-07-19 04:15:47 PM  

TheBigJerk: Not clicking a blaze link, but from the sound of things we ALREADY knew this.  We had reports of NSA agents spying on and stalking their girlfriends and exes because they have shiat oversight and a hidden paper-trail.


Not only that, we know the cops regularly use the police databases to stalk their ex lovers, and harass them for breaking up with a cop.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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