US intelligence mining data from 9 US Internet companies in broad secret program
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Watch this, then ask yourself how you feel (if it doesn't go directly to 6:40, fastforward to it, then watch for 30 seconds):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&feature=yout...
I understand about various interpretations of "collect", "intercept", "analyze", etc. Just watch the video, and ask yourself how you feel. Please know that I'm not telling you how to feel, just providing a small snippet of a conversation. Why do you feel that way, and what does that feeling say about you, or your society?
Originally found in a comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5835025
This is just more reason why bills like CISPA need to be revised or blocked. The gov already knows what we do, but it just comes down to what they can prove in court.
It would be interesting to have this automated and available in real time. (Of course people would learn the value of making it trigger level. But you can include whether the person by virtue of their position likely has that level of awareness...)
The only real challenge would be a massive public uproar suitably close to an election that someone needs to be sacrificed, and how likely is that really? It's not a surprise that this is happening; the only surprise is that anything resembling proof has leaked. What are the odds that this will suddenly tip the balance and cause sufficient lasting outrage?
And millions of americans should sign a petition to have this happen.
It's called US Senate elections[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,...
That bullshit called the Presidential elections? It's a dog and pony show.
Hint: The last bit I left out rhymes with "carol of the sun" ;)
"You don’t know what order with freedom means! You only know what revolt against oppression is! You don’t know that the rod, discipline, violence, the state and government can only be sustained because of you and because of your lack of socially creative powers that develop order within liberty!" --- Gustav Landauer
It humbles me every time I read it, because to resist or to rebel against existing things is easy, at least for me.. but to actually put thought and effort into things "building a better world" in a sustainable and organized way, to be creative in co-operation and compromising with others, to get out of all these comfort zones, etc. It's a lifetime effort, and none of us will see all the fruits of it, or ever be sure the fruit won't be snatched up, so the default is to not even try, except a little bit here and there. It's like living hand to mouth, but in a political sense. It's all just reaction, and that sucks.
But I do agree with the literation of it being like living hand to mouth, but I think it goes far beyond being a political sense. Mortgages, paychecks, car loans, insurance, student loans, dead end jobs, that gadget we just have to have, endless media d̶i̶s̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ entertainment, the food we eat… when do we, as a society (people from all backgrounds, sadly not all of us are invited to BBG 2013 and Google Zeitgeist in Watford) really give ourselves the time to think or push the boundaries outside current constructs to forge something transcendent?
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiSymRrKI4
[1]: http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mi...
Enough signatures would be able to put pressure on the White House and gain an official response.
"Eventually Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III wrote Wyden a letter stating that it would violate the privacy of Americans in NSA data banks to try to estimate their number."
It would violate your privacy to find out if your privacy is violated. This sort of double-think should be in an Orwell novel, not in real life!
Lets make it an online petition, that way we don't even have to do anything than click and type and spread our online outrage instead of actually making this issue a big deal.
That's a bit slippery, but could be an explanation for his statement.
Thanks for that.
Contrast that to his direct confident demeanor when he's telling evasive truths.
Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence
The National Security Agency and the FBI
are tapping directly into the central servers
extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails,
documents and connection logs
Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk,
AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.
Dropbox, the cloud storage and synchronization
service, is described as “coming soon.”I'm pretty sure dropbox can reverse any encryption they use for the files they store. Or do they even encrypt the data?
There are some (flimsy) reasons for Dropbox to have copies of all storage keys (a web UI, which only some users use). Dropbox has done a good job of misrepresenting how their security worked for the past ~4 years to mislead people into trusting it, though.
This is mostly why I don't use Dropbox whenever I have a choice.
The problem is mobile. Due to some questionable decisions made by especially Apple but also earlier with Google, you really need every single app to write to your cloud storage provider's API. Dropbox is unquestionably the leader there; iCloud on iOS seems to do ok for newer apps. Neither provides meaningful encryption. Requiring every app developer to figure out encryption and manage keys on his own and then handle that on top of the Dropbox API is also insane.
Arguably Apple has a lot of ways to pwn iOS users already, so I'd consider trusting Apple and iCloud to not be that much worse than just trusting iOS, but it is still bad (and most of the bad things Apple can do to you either involve signing bad things, then requiring an active step by the user or MITM, or doing things like retaining device keys at manufacture time and subsequently seizing the devices, or having some deeply-buried backdoors which probably require physical access or are exceedingly infrequently used.)
There's really no good solution for mobile now. You could probably build something fairly non-shitty in the Android world, although I don't know enough about how applications share files and interoperate to know if it would need to be a per-user-app integration. On non-jailbroken iOS, it's pretty clear you'd need to develop a new API which did client-side crypto, key management, etc., on top of file sharing. It would be a pain, and even more of a pain if you wanted to avoid fully trusting Apple in the process.
The best solution right now is "no data lives on the phone", rather than trying to sync; use some kind of web or app which just uses transport crypto to interact with a server but never stores anything locally. If you trust the OS a lot, you could do something like what Good Technologies does and try to sandbox your data within a specialized app like that.
If only...
Android devices are unix devices, and (I assume) either have ssh/scp/sftp/rsync in their userland or it can easily be placed there...
If I had a modern phone, which I do not[1], I would probably just load duplicity[2] on it ? But now that I think about it, in the same way that I have zero data on my laptop, I assume I would also have zero data on my phone ?
Please do elaborate.
[1] Motorola F3 ("MOTO FONE")
I would suggest Spider Oak, however, their support is not timely and there's currently a bug in the Windows 8 client that doesn't let it work. But if they get those issues sorted it could be a decent service.
Could someone please tell me why I can't reply to any comments that are below the third level? The reply link simply disappears!
Edit: Now that I've made this statement there's a reply to gknoy, but not the ones below him or to o0-0o. This is really weird.
Edit 2: Upon refreshing, there's now a reply link to o0-0o but not the other ones below gknoy.
(I kind of hate the feature, since most of the time "you suck" "no, you do" "no, you do" only goes on a few levels, so the exponential delay isn't an issue, but an actual technical discussion goes deeper. False positives and false negatives. :( )
For example, for Facebook, the analyst goes to a special webpage/site at Facebook, then they simply clicks through a "Yep, this person is a terrorist" EULA and they have full access to Facebook's database (eg. full access to user content). I bet they rejoiced when Facebook Graph opened shop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5833747
If people don't know something by now it's equally the fault of the services they use for not educating them about the real implications of what they do online.
In regards to battery; please do stop now, you've resorted to using nonsense as argument.
How is this different than saying "if you want privacy don't share over the postal system" or "if you want privacy don't share over the phone"?
I am not good/disciplined enough to maintain my own mail server.
LE requests to FB simply do not work that way. They can make a request online, which is checked for proper authority, etc. The guidelines FB follows can be viewed at https://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/ and the idea that FB just randomly hands out full read access to user data is either a paranoid delusion or calculated deception. Maybe you can tell us which one you were aiming for.
'With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”'
Again: Questioning the motives behind an attempt of persuasion argument isn't a personal attack.
“Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data,” a company spokesman said. “We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a ‘back door’ for the government to access private user data.”
We can assume that Cook, who appeared behind Obama during The State of the Union, is probably on the same page. Highly powerful people know they can't fight the tide; and truly, why should they? The normal rules could never apply to them.
Watch this video and listen how many times 'in the United States' is mentioned.
Wasn't it always just a rumor going around that the U.S. Government "made" Microsoft buy Skype for spying purposes?
Well: "10 May 2011, Microsoft Corporation acquired Skype Communications"
and on 2/6/11 Skype was added to the US spy program [1]
They were so eager to spy on Skype users that they implemented that "feature" even before the deal was officially done. Considering that Skype had been around since 2003 the events don't appear very accidental.
Wouldn't surprise to find out one day that the Skype acquisition was indirectly tax-payer funded.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...
Nitro is a library for painlessly writing scalable, fast, and secure message-passing network applications
In any case, we've moved several projects to BTSync recently from Dropbox (for no other reason than to free up space on Dropbox for our personal files) and have been enjoying the service.
As a p2p encrypted protocol, I imagine it's much more difficult to eavesdrop on your files and would actually require a warrant to obtain.
I presume that's true for AeroFS as well.
http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/05/16/host-your-own-dropbox-li...
And, if you're concerned about spying - well, it is closed source.
And yes, they can give your data to the government. Communications to/from Dropbox are encrypted. But it is unencrypted on the back end. See http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2011/04/how-dropbox-sacrifices-u... for how we can know that.
The ability to detect duplication in no way proves the files are unencrypted (indeed this should be obvious from the fact that there is only negligible network traffic to confirm a duplicate! The bits can't be compared if they're not transmitted.)
It's the ability to serve deduplicated files that brings the service into question. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if there exists an asymmetric encryption method which permits decryption with one of several private keys – if so, secure deduplication is trivial: confirm the duplicate using a hash or comparing public-key encrypted versions; re-encrypt using both original and duplicate keys.
(And let's not even forget the ability to reset a forgotten password…)
It seems FBI/NSA "test-drive" a new illegal spying program first, and then lobby Congress to pass a law to make it legal (regardless of its constitutionality, as we've seen so far).
I bet they would've wanted retroactive immunity, too, in these new laws. Also, let's see how those supporters of FISA, like Dianne Feinstein, try to spin this one as "they already knew about it" (which makes it that much worse) and that it's nothing new.
Also let me see them say with a straight face that this is constitutional and doesn't violate the 4th Amendment. But seeing how cynical these people have become, I don't think it would be too hard for them to do it.
Congress: "ok"
---
But we are not fooling anyone. There is not a single worthy human being in congress. Every single last one of them is a corporate shill and they are all opportunistic criminals.
But honestly, are you surprised? Are you really?
Government agencies have be building large datacenters, the EU loves data retention. There was no tin foil head required to see this.
I see this "are you so naive as to be surprised?" reaction in almost every thread about this. It's some kind of defense mechanism.
That's why I'm saying you are right to be upset.
I like the saying "being paranoid does not mean they are not after you". And being paranoid turned out to be realistic.
In fact, with all of the "scandals" right now, there's an even greater motivation to run this story.
So what's the motivation that's holding this story back?
If you are British, as I am, I assume our government is shovelling off all our data to the US too.
As far as I am concerned, the internet is now pretty much like having our lives bugged. Might as well go the whole hog and have CCTV in all house holds. Heh, for all I know they access out webcams, etc. So, we might already be there.
I'm afraid the US has essentially infected the internet with a cancer what will only spread. Freedom, privacy, liberty, on the internet is officially gone. Sure we all "knew" about the likes of echelon for years, but it was officially dismissed as loony conspiracy talk. Now we know it basically true.
Sad thing is, this is under the watch of a Democrat, started by a Republican. Who is going to dare to reverse this?
No, it does not, that is the sick part. But as a non american it's not (or should not) be my business how the usa organizes itself and what kind of politics they make. And yet I'm sure they are infringing my rights.
Point is, I didn't vote for Obama. Nor is it my job to get rid of him.
It's not much of a leap to think that the NSA has backdoors into each of these OS's, too.
Wasn't there a number of news stories in the past about the NSA collecting data from telecom companies and such. How is this time different?
EDIT: Found this, from May 2006: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns...
FTA: "According to a separate “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection,” that service can be monitored for audio when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of “audio, video, chat, and file transfers” when Skype users connect by computer alone. Google’s offerings include Gmail, voice and video chat, Google Drive files, photo libraries, and live surveillance of search terms."
>I'm not sure when the security people you are talking about did their audit
The security audit was done in 2005 by Tom Berson of Anagram Laboratories. This was well before Skype was bought by microsoft but Skype links to it off their home page http://www.skype.com/en/security/#review
That said, it has been shown that at the minimum China has keys to decrypt peer to peer communications, likey the NSA does as well. The NSA doesn't need Microsoft to route call traffic via their servers, because they already have taps at all the major exchange points.
When logging in an RSA public/private key pair is generated and the public key is sent up to the server. The username to public key mapping is seeded to supernodes and inserted into the global address book.
A calling party looks up the username on a supernode and receives the public key of the answerer as well as some magic to help them establish a direct connection even if both are behind NAT.
The caller generates a single use AES256 key for the session, encrypts it N times where N is the number of other parties on the call plus a number of built-in "observer" certificates. These encrypted keys are all sent over the wire to the other parties, whom are each able to decrypt 1 of the N encrypted payloads.
Each party encrypts traffic to the others using the session specific AES key.
If you are a government agency with a private key that matches one of the observer public keys (Russia, China, and India have openly claimed to have these), and you are able to record the setup for the call, you are effectively another party in the group chat and have access to the session key.
>If you are a government agency with a private key that matches one of the observer public keys (Russia, China, and India have openly claimed to have these
I am not calling bullshit, I just want to know more.
>If you are a government agency with a private key that matches one of the observer public keys (Russia, China, and India have openly claimed to have these
See a previous post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5754641
You're not even supposed to reveal that you are complying (gag order). Google has been in the news recently about fighting one in court.
That's kind of the point. They say, "Keep sending those updates. Otherwise you will go to federal prison." You say, "OK."
From: manager@corp.com
To: minimax@corp.com
Subject: When you get a minute
We got a subpoena to provide information about
<identifying information>. When you get a second
can you grep through the logs and provide any
connection details if he was online from <start>
to <end>. Thanks.
He is welcome to add options to use my own cloud storage while using clientside encryption, and I might reconsider.
You're welcome to send him your opinion as well. It's tcook@youknowntherest.
Clientside crypto will only possibly be mass-adopted when there's some easy system for common folks to store their keys.
If the common forgetful folks like to trade ease-of-use with being spied upon, I'm fine with that.
But me, I'm not willing to do that trade-off.
I'm pretty sure that unknown reason was Steve Jobs. Apple became a participant 1 year after Tim Cook took the helm.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...
I wonder which cub analyst got the job of putting together a collage of logos for that final slide?
These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government is worried about, and they're not going to risk revealing their methods for something lesser.
Warren Buffet has predicted a major nuclear terrorist attack on an American city to be a "virtual certainty" given enough time.
Ok, but no one here is going to argue that stopping terrorism is bad: the problem is in how we define terrorism. What happens when the definition becomes progressively wider? What counts as "terrorism" is political, after all.
It's important to remember that we still have a functioning democracy. If you -- Hacker News reader -- decided to run for congress tomorrow, you might not win, but you won't be killed, sabotaged, or secretly blocked. While some individual politicans may be corrupt, the system broadly is not. These programs are enforcement mechanisms; the laws themselves are still made by the people, and maybe corporations. While we as a population may argue about social issues like gay marriage and abortion, our government is not fascist.
Further, I take these programs as a great example that security is much harder to create than it is to destroy. Extreme efforts such as these may still be insufficient to prevent New York from being destroyed by terrorists. In that case, the acts of a few crazy people still overcame a monumental effort by the entire intelligence apparatus. What does that say about the time Hacker News is so afraid of, when it's more than only a few crazy people that the government is "worried about"?
Should these programs exist? I don't know. I'm as worried as anyone about the scope creep. I'm willing to accept a level of inherent danger with living in a free society. However, do not forget that we can't see NSA success stories. I might be willing to accept a risk of periodic car bombs, which while tragic are not statistically significant; however, if PRISM is actually effective at tracing and intercepting Soviet nuclear weapons, I can see multiple sides of this issue.
We have rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Those rights were created to prevent unfair loss of life, liberty, and property. These programs, hidden in the background, don't inconvenience you, or lead to loss of freedom or property. Is privacy good? Of course. But the incentives the intelligence apparatus have to not use any data collected here against anyone for reasons less than "real" terrorism are strong enough, that I think it's not open-and-shut.
It's one thing to do it legally. It's another to do it without approval from Congress. It's another to do it without approval from Congress or the will of the people.
Although, between FISA and PATRIOT ACT, it more or less is "legal". Either way, you're on the right track. It's a slippery slope and as far as I'm concerned, PRISM is slippery enough to feel like I can say that without feeling silly for using the phrase "slippery slope" seriously (and even worse, three times in one post).
#1 The existence of the spying is top secret. This isn't surveillance of a suspected serial killer or corrupt Governor. The only reason for this to be secret is fear of political backlash.
#2 The secrecy is protected and enforced by law. However this was leaked, if identified the individual(s) involved will go to prison.
#3 This blanket secrecy is also being applied to elected members of Congress. How can something be opposed if its existence is secret, as protected by law?
I am coming to grips with the issue that there may be no turning back on the mass surveillance state. While we may be capable of barricading certain activities from surveillance, others have become integrated in to the operation of every day life, likely irreversibly.
However we have a much more chilling problem when this surveillance, by the government, is a one way mirror. If the activity is secret and that secrecy is enforced through the punishment of imprisonment, all accountability is lost.
The NSA is not a branch of government, and yet it is in effect dictating what the other three branches of government must do. Congress, forced in to secrecy through law -- even if some support what is occurring dissenters can not voice their opinion, Executive, who even knows what is going on there, and Judicial, which serves as the secrecy enforcer.
I think the people in the crypto community just assumed the NSA was doing this decades ago. Now it is unquestionably reality. This must serve as a wake up call for us to terminate our relationships with Google, Facebook, and Microsoft and figure out how to provide blacked-out alternative services to our users.
If not, in 5 years, every single waking moment of your life will be available electronically and in perpetuity. No matter what happens most of it will be, which makes it ever more important that the protect-able segments are not.
Up until now cryptography & privacy have been very poorly marketed. There are polished solutions such as Silent Circle, but for $240+ a year it provides little to offer for mass adaptation. Email, instant messaging, and video conferencing all have a wide array of solutions and plugins, but between manual configuration and out of date code, the marketing is on par with programmer drawn graphics in video games.
Snapchat may offer little more than faux privacy, but its mass adaption proves that there is a huge market for privacy. There are promising projects, like Crypton.io, which enable the use of cryptography in cloud applications. You, HN readers, have more influence on the direction of these things than anyone else in the entire world. Your start ups will determine what 5 years from now look like.
Make Privacy a Feature and its a win-win for both business and individual rights.
Answer: The information gathering has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with power.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy.
I don't think you've really thought this argument through. I don't think the government is so much interested in vastly expanding its powers of information gathering (although as I've noted elsewhere, the government has had unlimited access to your phone records, by order of the Supreme court, since 1979), as it is in maximizing its predictive abilities within its existing legal limits - which is also considered by many to be part of its job. It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types.
I have no idea how you interpreted it that way. The quote is in reference to the government. It's from a video game, which came out in 1999.
It's like you think comments are some sort of game where you can win or lose. I think I'll just let readers read my comments and opt out of this silly game you want to play.
Of 400 employees.
If PRISM only really costs $20M/year (per the slide deck), it has to be the greatest bang-for-buck IT project in Federal history. I'd let it go if we can get rid of all those multi-billion satellite projects and 3/4ths of the staff.
Damage to perceived 'rights' is OK, as long as it is done efficiently.
What do you mean?
They are getting a discount in this case however, as companies are doing a lot of the work for them.
Let's not forget that they've been attempting to keep the existence of this program a secret.
>This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage.
Aren't the people supposed to be the masters of the government?
>It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types.
So our job is to convince those people of their error by espousing evidence in support of our view. Malicious governments kill drastically more innocent people than malicious individuals or small groups; excessive government power is more dangerous than terrorism. The amount of money we spend on anti-terrorism measures is drastically out of proportion to the actual threat and those resources could be better spent on more serious issues, terrorism hype is financially supported in enormous amounts by defense contractors and other parties with a significant pecuniary interest in continued government waste, etc.
A similar view is held here (in the Netherlands), where interesting new methods are created to monitor speeding. The thing is, it's not viewed - or even promoted as - something that increases safety and reduces lethal accidents on the roads, but instead as a way for the government to make money.
Similarly, the way this is portrayed and kept secret by the government and the security agencies is not to reduce and prevent terrorist attacks, but to infringe upon the privacy of people using US-based online services. If the NSA and similar organizations were to be more open about what terrorist attacks they prevented, they would create more goodwill and would gain support from the people.
Yet, branding terrorists and openly causing fear of terrorists and their attacks has two side-effects; one, it will make terrorists smarter and more secretive, and two, it happens in all the Orwellian dystopias, instilling fear of 'terrorists' and foreign nations in the populace as a means of control.
So, the people would dream themselves masters of the government agency NSA. Wasn't that what government was supposed to do? Serve the people?
Simple fact is that speeding is not that much of a problem. Certainly people do it and it's dangerous, but most people obey speed limits within acceptable parameters and drive fairly safely. Present levels of speed enforcement are doing their job and greater levels would have a point of diminishing returns.
The fear of losing privacy to the government is based on the fear that this increased surveillance will be used by the government to smother dissent. This is a valid fear, but has the government yet used surveillance to smother dissent? If you can find a solid example of this, I'd like to see one (and for all I know, there could be many, I'm genuinely interested).
Until the government has been caught using surveillance to stifle dissent, it seems like increased surveillance only serves to reduce crime. Of course, there are illegal things that, in my opinion, should be legal, but this is a reason to petition the government for change, not break the law... perhaps a reduced ability to break pointless laws would galvanize the population into large-scale activism?
Fear of government surveillance is entirely fear of smothered dissent. We must make sure our fears of the latter are logically sound before we fear the former.
EDIT: Because I love arguing with myself, I'll point out that it's possible some wrongly illegal activities may be embarrassing for some individuals, and they would be hesitant to openly campaign for them. It still feels weird to argue for privacy on the grounds that people have a right to get away with certain things, hmm...
EDIT 2: 15 minutes and already COINTELPRO negated the argument. Good counter, thanks.
EDIT 3: Really appreciate that I seem to have gotten at least one upvote. I get really dismayed when politely-expressed unpopular opinions are downvoted, because I feel the best way to move the dialogue forward is to engage with opposing views, not hide them (even if your level of engagement is comprehensive refutation, that's still useful).
The very reason why these things should never be allowed, is because the absolute protection of freedom of speech is ultimately the last safeguard against tyranny (before you get to violence anyway).
Why let the guy into my house with a gun and roll the dice on whether he intends to at some point do me harm? That's crazy. We've seen enough really malevolent politicians assume power all over the world and domestically, to know better than to take such chances. History is littered with endless examples, it's at best naive to think America can't suffer the same types of fate.
This is how revolutions are started. There's no "game over." A population always has the option to rise up against their brutal regime. Especially in a place like the United States, where individual freedoms are highly prized and there is a rather large contingent of heavily armed and often angry population.
I fear that if there is a violent revolution in a society as socioeconomically and ethnically diverse as the United States it would result in a civil war. I have no idea how that would play out in a country as developed as the United States but I don't think it would be pretty.
I wonder if this fits your bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
And, from the little I know, the actual stifling part is [allegedly?] evident in malcom X and fred hampton cases, as well as others I might be missing.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
Disclaimer: I don't actually mind as much as I should. I somewhat OK with a cyberpunk dystopia because the closer to Ghost in the Shell we get, the cooler.
It's also because it seemed as if Obama understood that there should be a delicate line between sacrificing liberty for security.
He also talks about people not wanting a 'big gov't...but a smarter gov't'.
But it is becoming increasingly clear that he was just talking smooth - but doing quite the opposite.
Please note, I am not an Obama hater. I supported him twice - I even have a Shepherd Fairy 'Change' poster.
But this is just disgusting man.
It's like someone that runs a campaign talking about how much they love guns, and how much they are going to protect gun ownership - then when they win, they talk a good talk, but then we find out that the government has been secretly buying up all the guns they can (to dry up supply) and closing down all the gun shops.
Just because the U.S government has not yet used surveillance to stifle dissent, doesn't mean they will never do it.
Also, if in the meantime civil liberties such as privacy are sacrificed, when the time comes that they DO use surveillance to stifle dissent, it may be much too late to turn the tide, as dissent would then be required to stop their stifling of dissent.
And they never get the wrong guy. They always get the right guy.
As long as nobody is inconvenienced it can't possibly be bad. Right?
Information from intelligence programs has already been used in non-terrorism cases, like those of Petraeus and Spitzer.
There are security interests in monitoring people who hold clearance. I'm not making any statements about unlimited wiretapping and data collection.
The problem isn't so much the collection of the data, it's that checks and balances that are in place are completely opaque to public scrutiny. Everything is classified
Search queries alone will probably tell you which way a person is leaning in an election. That by itself is not good in a democratic process hinged on secret ballot. What if the information of everyone that voted for a given candidate is collected, passed under the table to another "bad guy" in another agency, such as IRS, and then used to inflict financial harm. Yes, very far fetched, but such power is an enabler.
It seems that having courts grant warrants provides a necessary level of review by a psudo-independent body, as to sufficiently protect against undue invasion of privacy.
Based on the description in the article, I'm not sure if there are a lot of protections against personal use, like spying on a girlfriend. (When I used ChoicePoint for background investigations, it only recorded my "permissible purpose" selection, but no real validation, just an audit log of the search.)
It is not just the problem that they were targeted based on name (I actually think that's pretty reasonable) but the questions that were asked, the time it took to get approved (or denied) and the fact that IRS lied to congress about it.
In other words, the parameters of 501(c)(4) organizations were already well established, and being primarily "political" (when you think about it, a rather vaguely broad term) is just fine, you're focusing too much on the words of art "social welfare" vs. what they mean in practice.
Even Obamacon (con as in "conservative") Peggy Nonan has woken up and realized the implications of this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...):
"What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights."
Do you really think that's OK?
Are there any other politicians in power at the federal level these days?
>We have rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
I want those rights too. I might have them on paper (since it's a democracy here in Europe as well, and there are agreements), but it seems like nobody in charge cares either way.
> If you -- Hacker News reader -- decided to run for congress tomorrow, you might not win, but you won't be killed, sabotaged, or secretly blocked.
I cannot run. I'm not from the US. I can't even vote. I can try to make my government do something about it, but you know how that goes.
Yes, "national security assets" would never be used for silly things like the war on drugs:
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-12/local/me-147_1_drug-c...
That is the problem with this sort of argument. Things done to catch terrorists usually wind up being used for law enforcement purposes years down the road. Terrorism just is not common enough to justify the expenditure; eventually, after the well-connected companies and contractors have laughed their way to the bank, some politician comes in and says, "This is a waste of money, but it would be less wasteful to use it to help our poor, overburdened cops!"
But I grow up in Eastern Europe, so I'm unreasonably concerned and paranoid. It will not happen here because we are so special. /sarcasm.
I fear that may never happen. It is easier to destroy encryption keys than it is to shred paper documents.
Sadly, this is not nearly as clear as it could be: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof...
That's a common miss-belief. Its false on so many levels, but people keep believing in it even after it has been found to be false every single time it has been said.
To take an example with wiretaps in US. First they said that any data found about innocent bystanders would be imminently destroyed. A few years later, they change the rules to keep it, but proclaimed that it was just 60 days. Years later, they put out a small press release and changed it to 5 months.
Or take the Swedish wiretap law. Politians and collumnist promised high and low that it would never, EVER, be used for anything but terrorism threats outside the national border. They said that anyone believing otherwise was tinfoil hats, and just misunderstood the issue. Before a year had passed, the secret police (for internal security) was granted an exception. A few months later, government politicians got an exception. At the same time, the police got an exception to target serious crime. A few months further down, and it was talks about using the data for our version of IRS.
Yes, never ever indeed.
It was 180 days that was changed to 5 years.
- This government program is widely hated
- We have a functioning democracy
Non-democratic republics include 18th-century USA, where only white male landowners could vote. Democratic non-republics include the UK, which is a monarchy. "Republicanism" and "democracy" are orthogonal concepts.
Yes, our government is democratic: it is not, however, an absolute majoritarian government where any action that majority favours can and will be put into decree and acted upon. Democracy means "rule of the people", not "absolute rule by a simple majority/plurality".
Yes, we have elections, but we also have bi-cameral legislature, separation of powers, and a constitutions. We hold elections and let majority (at times a simple majority, in other cases -- like amending the constitution -- a supermajority) of our elected representatives decide which laws will pass. We don't do so because of an a priori commitment to majority, we do so because we haven't found other forms of government that respect civil liberties and other human rights to the same extent that a representative democracy would.
In other words, elected government is the means to an end (a society where the strongest individuals or the biggest gangs cannot violate others' rights to life, liberty, and property without repercussions), not an end in it of itself.
I realize this isn't an invalidation of your points: while I disagree with you (yes, intelligence agencies should be allowed to exist; no, they can not be allowed to snoop -- even accidentally -- on US citizens or permanent residents without due process), your point is salient and doesn't require making such a dangerous argument ("as long as our government is a functional democracy, we shouldn't worry about governments' intrusion on our rights to x" where x in this case is "privacy").
How do you know this?
ducks
Everything is a certainty given enough time.
In addition, Mr. Buffet may be a great investor, but what exactly how much would he know about terrorists or nuclear weapons? Probably as much as you and I.
Because the facts of each iteration can completely alter the whole chain.
This is the argument that if you flip a coin enough times, heads MUST come up. But that is in fact not true. Each flip is completely independent of the last flip. Given enough time, there is in fact no law that says heads must occur.
Real life events work much the same way. Any given event can be interrupted. The 'everything is certain' premise doesn't work if a human exists and can stop or alter the process with free will (in any number of a zillion variable ways). For example, Buffett's calculation says that after, say, 100 years a nuclear bomb essentially must have gone off, but that's not true at all, because people can always stop it from happening and interrupt the theoretical math calculation (which only actually exists in a 'vacuum'). In any given year, the odds are N, but that does not in fact compound into following years inherently.
No, it's the argument that given enough time, it is certain that something as unlikely as a direct meteorite strike on Earth will happen. Low probability x infinite timeframe = %100 occurrence
> It's important to remember that we still have a functioning democracy. If you -- Hacker News reader -- decided to run for congress tomorrow, you might not win, but you won't be killed, sabotaged, or secretly blocked.
To the contrarily, rival political individuals can map, with the help of ubiquitous wiretap, which people are a threat to their power. From that they can redirect police "focus" to either crack down on such threat directly, or any support group they might have. Political figures are commonly the second largest requester for domestic intel, only second to the secret police.
I would certainly be interested in seeing the evidence to back up this claim.
Well, thats a simplistic view of what the government is worried about.
The government is worried about the safety of THIER POSITION OF POWER - nothing less.
The information gathered will be used 100% to defend their position of power. The power of the system.
The peoples sentiment and the position of society as it pertains to not uprising against the leeching system of power that sits on top of the people is what they are after.
In more direct words; the military-industrial complex that profits from 99.99% of the worlds population will take every measure to make sure that you remain a consuming, productive asset to their vast wealth.
Yes, because those things are all entirely unknown in the history of Senate races in the US.
Well as someone with a history degree let me explain....
> These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government is worried about, and they're not going to risk revealing their methods for something lesser.
I think that misses the historical abuses here. The question is who decides what is a big fish or not and on what criteria. Additionally what happens to the bigger fish when they are just good enough at hiding evidence that they cannot be prosecuted for bigger fish crimes (or more to the point when the NSA thinks this is what is happening)? Don't you think that at that point, those vast archives would not be repurposed to answer the demand to "find me the crime?" And given the vagueness of many federal laws, don't you think that would be an easy task on anyone?
The problem isn't in prosecuting people who unambiguously broke the law. The problem is in making those vast resources available to carry out the fight against the "bigger fish" by any means necessary. This enables an environment where "show me the man and I'll find you the crime" becomes an acceptable way to deal with "bad people" (but "being bad" is unconstitutionally vague as a criminal statute). This sort of thing is entirely common in history, from the Star Chamber to the FISC, and from antiquity to the present.
> These are what the government is worried about, and they're not going to risk revealing their methods for something lesser.
Ok, so suppose a senator starts leaking classified information of this sort. Do you think that such archives might be useful for ensuring that all manner of vague federal felony prosecutions could be used to silence and discredit him? Does he become a big fish at that point?
> Warren Buffet has predicted a major nuclear terrorist attack on an American city to be a "virtual certainty" given enough time.
Sure, it's a virtual certainty given enough time. However, suppose we get incredibly unlucky and one gets through every 100 years or so. The personal risk to an American is insignificant compared to all manner of things we take for granted every day (such as driving home from work). Saying this makes us safer just doesn't cut it.
> What counts as "terrorism" is political, after all.
Bingo. The KKK has been called terrorist before (in fact Justice Thomas said as much in one of his dissents, where he argued that cross burning was unprotected by the first amendment), but if we give up the first amendment regarding terrorism don't we go right back to the McCarthy era before Yates v. United States was decided and terrorism and sedition prosecutions were common for the mere act of distributing writings of Karl Marx?
> It's important to remember that we still have a functioning democracy.
The facade of one at least. We all know who is really in power and it is not the people.
> If you -- Hacker News reader -- decided to run for congress tomorrow, you might not win, but you won't be killed, sabotaged, or secretly blocked. While some individual politicans may be corrupt, the system broadly is not.
Being in Indonesia, in a place obviously corrupt, and seeing how things function, has given me a very different look at corruption in the US. I don't concur with your assessment about corruption. Americans are just a lot more refined about it.
If you are so sure that the system isn't corrupt, then who do you think would get a harsher sentence in court, the poor black man with three grams of crack cocaine or the suburban white man with 20 pot plants or 50 grams of powder cocaine? Defence atty Billy Murphy has sometimes said that drug legalization is working for the upper classes because they just get probation and treatment, and so it is time to bring it to the lower classes. Moreover every attempt to make the system more predictable just pushes the actual decisions to smaller groups of people. Mandatory sentencing for example shifts power from judges to prosecutors. A government of laws is thus nothing more than a convenient fiction we use to avoid holding certain people accountable.
> These programs, hidden in the background, don't inconvenience you, or lead to loss of freedom or property.
That's totally false. As you put it, terrorism is politically defined. Giving the government dragnet surveillance powers in the fight against a politically defined and vague thing essentially restricts political freedom. Would you say that the USAPATRIOT, AEDPA, and friends do not restrict the ability to start up a Hamas USA political party? No you wouldn't and you couldn't after HPL v Holder. But you can't differentiate any of this from what our country went through with the Smith Act before it was castrated (thankfully) by the Supreme Court in Yates v. United States.
In the words of singer-songwriter Jack Warshaw in a song written about another era,
They came for Sacco, Vanzetti, Connoly, and Pearce in their time
They came for Newton and Seale, and the Panthers and some of their friends
In Boston, Chicago, Santiago, Warsaw and Belfast
And places that never make headlines, the list never ends
....
They say that here we are free to live our lives as we please
To march and to write and to sing as long as we do it alone
But do it together with comrades united and strong
And they'll take you away for long rest with walls and barbed wire for a home
There is a long tradition in this country of seeing certain groups as political prisoners (whether the Panthers or the Molly MacGuires) and a tradition which is founded on actual experience (whether Martin Luther King or the Communist Party USA). You can't sweep all that under the rug and say that 9/11 made all that obsolete. The fears are real and whether in any individual case historicaly there may or may not have been real justice done the fact remains that political prisoners have existed in our country at various times (there are reasons to think that Sacco and Vanzetti may have actually been guilty of murder, but their trial was not fair regardless, and there is no doubt that people were thrown in jail at one point for merely distributing Marxist literature).
They're not widely hated. I just polled my family: wife, mom, dad, and infant. None of them care. I don't really either, though I guess all else being equal I'd prefer it if they didn't collect this information. Anecdotal, I know, but I'd hazard a guess its representative.
I can only applaud to secret agencies for this fine job of creating a favorable public opinion on the matter that would had been deemed atrocious only a decade ago.
If I run for congress against a candidate strongly favored by this or a future administration, how do I know that my telephone call records aren't being leaked to the opposition?
Or worse, how do I know that the people running these programs aren't using a decade of collected data to influence vulnerable politicians? How do I know if someone in the NSA isn't blackmailing the President?
Who is watching the watchers? Some kangaroo secret court, who the intelligence community has had broad authority to ignore?
> I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated.
Because most people do not like when bunch of geeks are laughing at their pillow talk or sex talk with wife over the phone? Because we have a right to privacy, like most human beings..?
> These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case.
And you know this because of what??
> Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. Just exactly what was the last time you heard government proudly announcing they were able to stop a pathogens spread attack? Or nuclear weapon being recovered? Give me a break! They couldn't even stop two morans with pressure cookers in Boston and you trying to tell me they will track some pathogens that vanished from a lab??
> Ok, but no one here is going to argue that stopping terrorism is bad: the problem is in how we define terrorism. How about this: terrorism is when you secretly drone a group of people in Afganistan and as a "collateral damage" you kill some 8 year old boy. Then his father happen to build up anger against americans, board a plane and walk to Times Square to detonate his vest. He is a terrorist, right? I mean, you barely heard about some children being droned by accident, and then you have Manning facing possible capital punishment for releasing materials like Apache "mistake" attack on civilians. But sure you will hear about that fanatic detonating on us soil. You want to stop terrorism? Fine! Immidiately withdraw ALL troops from ALL foreign soils: Iraq, Afganistan, everywhere where americans are sticking their nose where it doesn't belong to! How on earth are they protecting us soil by occupying Iraq, for crying out loud?? Once you stop invading countries, dronning innocent people, you will all of sudden see nobody cares about coming to america and blowing themselves up.
> It's important to remember that we still have a functioning democracy. No we don't. Money buys power, power buys money. When you big and powerful enough, you are innocent regardless of charges. You are "too big to fail", or other crap. You are given billions of tax payers money to survive while others bankrupt. Democracy ended in 60s.
> If you -- Hacker News reader -- decided to run for congress tomorrow, you might not win, but you won't be killed, sabotaged, or secretly blocked. Oh okay so for that reason let's stop the human kind progress here and just gave up everything because since we are not following example of some African countries, then everything will always be fine.
> While some individual politicans may be corrupt, the system broadly is not. How about this: while system broadly is corrupt, some individual politicans are not.
> These programs are enforcement mechanisms; the laws themselves are still made by the people, No they are not. They are made by entities; government entities. You watch news lately? Bengatzi 9 months later - no answers, no one guilty, no one brought to justice, Rice promoted. Fast and Furious - One US marschall dead -- noone found guilty, noone brought to justice, IRS -- same story plus individual taking 5th. People in government ARE NOT accountable and until this changes up to bringing criminal charges (against people like the one in charge of lavish $50MM spending at IRS), noone will care or be scared!
> While we as a population may argue about social issues like gay marriage and abortion, our government is not fascist. Read the definition on Wikipedia. We are in fact very close to it.
There's no convoluted justification you could ever come up with to rationally argue otherwise.
You do not have a functioning democracy when the top military intelligence officers lie to elected representatives about the existence of a massive domestic surveillance apparatus.
Second, his calculation is bogus, amusingly enough. The odds of the actual event occuring don't improve every year that goes by. That's assumes everything is static and unstoppable to begin with, among other false assumptions embedded into it.
It'd be like saying: given enough time, a nuclear bomb will go off in Greenland. That's not true at all, but if you calculated using Buffett's false premise, then yes, after N years it would have to happen (because his premise is that there's N chance per year, and then he treats the equation like a coin flip, where eventually it is supposed to be 99.99999% likely to land on heads, but that's false because every flip is independent of the last flip in reality; his calculation only works in an artificial reality / vacuum). In actuality, a nuclear attack could just as easily occur tomorrow morning as 80 years from now, and that completely debunks Buffett's point.
If I, the Hacker News reader, decided to run for Congress tomorrow, I would run against an incumbent whose district has been gerrymandered to statistically guarantee his reelection and whose colleagues in the House can distribute nationally-raised money to in case that's not enough of a guarantee.
If I, the Hacker News reader, voted for a guy who spoke convincingly in favor of civil liberties and against warrantless wiretapping, I would have discovered that once he was elected, he had been lying to me all along.
If I, the Hacker News reader, ever gained enough power and influence to really affect things, who's to say I won't be found dead? For all the public knows, I could have been killed by any lone gunman, just like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, or John or Bobby Kennedy. Then I just turn into a harmless, martyred caricature rather than as a living, thinking human being--nothing subversive there.
If we still have a functioning democracy, then try and convince the people that there's nothing to fear from these kinds of programs. If the NSA has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear.
"These are national security assets: evidence gathered
here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion
case."
Funny, that's what they said about the PATRIOT act, yet virtually all invocations of said act have had nothing to do with terrorism (e.g. drug arrests). If you give the government these powers you are assuming there will never be someone in charge of this information who is corrupt. But corrupt people are already in charge of it! This will only get worse.
>Warren Buffet has predicted a major nuclear terrorist attack on an American city to be a "virtual certainty" given enough time.
Buffet probably has no idea what would be involved in pulling off a nuclear attack. Hint: "dirty bombs" is just made up nonsense.
If I had the money to make it interesting for him, I'd take a long bet on this one and even leave it open ended. I'm sure we'll all be dead before it happens.
>Ok, but no one here is going to argue that stopping terrorism is bad
I do. Terrorism isn't a legitimate concern for the US. Over the last 30 years, we've had around 100 deaths per year. That about a drop of piss in the ocean. Not worth even thinking about for one second. Us all those resources to do something that would have an effect like fighting cancer, making highways safer, etc.
Fighting terrorism as the US does is like doing extreme chemo therapy for a sniffle.
>It's important to remember that we still have a functioning democracy.
Really? Go look up some executive orders that have come out of the president's office (past as well as present). This paragraph is more a hope about how things should be then proof of how they are. Ask yourself how you can know any of it's true. It's legal to take pictures of cops, yet if you do it you could end in jail anyway. It's illegal for cops to rape and murder, yet it happens and often enough with no real consequence to the cop.
>Extreme efforts such as these may still be insufficient to prevent New York from being destroyed by terrorists.
Then why bother? We're only giving corrupt people unchecked power to lord over us and we're getting back a small chance that we might possible prevent some attack that might possibly happen (but if you look at the actual history of terrorist attacks, they usually fail from their own incompetence).
>However, do not forget that we can't see NSA success stories.
Then why would we assume any exist. The onus is on those who violate us to prove it's providing some value.
>hidden in the background, don't inconvenience you, or lead to loss of freedom or property.
Of course they do. They expose we to the whims of low paid morons on power trips.
> But the incentives the intelligence apparatus have to not use any data collected here against anyone for reasons less than "real" terrorism are strong enough, that I think it's not open-and-shut.
Complete and utter bullshit. Have you actually looked at e.g. what the PATRIOT act has actually been used for? Hint: terrorism is line noise in the application of that act. It's used for almost anything but.
On one hand, it's to help limit classified information to those with a need-to-know.
On the other hand, it's used to mislead oversight and limit the visible scope of an overall goal.
So while it may be technically true that PRISM is only doing x, there may be a separate compartment (called, say FROGBUTT or whatever) that performs the sister role of y in support of PRISM.
This is how intelligence agencies hide and mislead the public. They say "Yeah, we do have a program called FROGBUTT that collects call metadata, but we don't collect personal information or examine the contents of a call." What they don't mention is that they have another companion program called LIZARDDICK that does collect that accompanying personal information, and they have yet another program called COWBONG that collects the contents of calls.
This is how this work. Plausible deniability, onion layers, confusion. Combine this with the fact they periodically change compartment program names, and it gets exponential.
See also: RAGTIME, THINTHREAD, STELLAR WIND, TRAILBLAZER, etc
My problem is how they portray this. Direct from the article:
"The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, "
and also:
"The technology companies, which participate knowingly in PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley."
If you have numerous (non-government contractor type) companies knowingly participating in the program, then it isn't "highly classified." And if you thought that your communications were private then you were fooling yourself. Even Tor, the darling of the EFF, was initially developed by the Navy. It's very tough for people to communicate electronically these days without the government being able to listen in.
Tor is open source. Are you suggesting there is some secret backdoor inserted by the Navy which is not apparent in the public code?
However noble the intention, it doesn't change the fact that everyone who has access to that information has signed an NDA and been through a security indoctrination (indoc used without the negative connotation in this case). They knew exactly what the punishment is for what they did. The jury that would nullify that would be a rare find in the US. It's basically zero probability if it was a military member subject to the UCMJ.
One more reason FISA is one sick, disgusting piece of legislation, and it was just extended to 2017, last year - yet too many were dormant when all of it was going down.
I think you are confusing the nature of FISA -- a piece of legislation designed to constrain excessive executive domestic surveillance passed in the wake of widespread and highly politicized abuses by the Nixon Administration -- and recent amendments to FISA to expand the scope of allowed surveillance that were passed under the justification of the necessities of the "War on Terror".
Or other open source alternatives?
[1]http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/17782-bittorrent-sync-faq-...
It would be awesome if they did open source it, or at least allow for third party (EFF?) review of source.
What would be the most effective form of protest?
Examples :
Everyone call random phone number on their mobile phones at exactly the same time "Hi, Im your friendly geek, just wanted you to know this conversation is being monitored"
Everyone use TOR for one week.
Everyone tweet "You are being spied on by the US government" at the same time ?
Basically the protest needs to drive home the massive swell of opposition on the issue - so that both sides of the house see it as a political survival necessity to reduce state sponsored surveillance.
With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”
I was an Obama supporter - both times.
But this crap....is definitely impeachable.
He blatantly made it sound nice, that we wouldn't sacrifice liberty for security and all this stuff.
But then all of these revelations - are you kidding me.
Someone has to pay - or many have to pay.
This is disgusting man.
Would such a massive undertaking be possible without the knowledge of the regular developers working at these companies? Some big names on that list, like Facebook (and I think Dropbox was 'coming soon'). If developers at these companies knew about these measures, I'm really skeptical in believing that it took an intelligence officer to expose this story. Chances would be much higher of devs at these companies (chances being good that some of them are the reddit/HN libertarian types) would have exposed this long ago.
Is such an operation feasible without the knowledge of hundreds of Google/facebook/other engineers?
I think it's far more likely this is built off the back of the data they're already known to be sucking down via major exchanges.
A national security letter for the TLS certs and you can take what you want, when you want off straight from the stream of packets.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...
A somewhat redacted, 158-page manual describing how to code these markings:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/capco_imp.pdf
A cheat sheet from 2008, by Julian Assange:
From a higher perspective I assume this is just a symptom of what is wrong with the country.
The biggest two lessons I learned from what I did was..1) if I can't tell someone what I'm doing it's probably wrong (I was 19 when I hacked Google, Etrade, and Schwab and thought it was ok)...and 2) if I have nothing to hide, then I shouldn't care to use the internet.
All this is really is confirmation more than a discovery.
[0] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/man-allegedly-b/
As a Kiwi it saddens me that the US and (and to some extent) NZ are descending into the style of government they proclaim to defend the world from.
If they are going to spy on their own citizens, why not protest by giving them something to spy on and hopefully increase their work load to something unmanageable.
I propose peppering every phone call, email comment etc with some choice trigger words of the day Al Queda.
Perhaps some hacker could come up with a plugin to do it automatically for us?
C4 semtex
There was a time when those in the Intelligence Community had this lesson burned into their brains.
This is the trailer: https://vimeo.com/57182041
1 - Will these companies provide data from all users or only US citizens?
2 - Who has access to the data? Only people working on this program at US intelligence or a wider set of people? For instance, can they look up my emails, photos and so on if I am about to be interview for high profile government job?
WTF....I don't know why I am surprised by this - but if they get access to Dropbox....wow.
I had let my guard down, but this is just crazy - that there would be nothing I could do to stop it....save for not using Dropbox.
That's an annoying choice to make - but it's a relatively easy one.
I'm guessing here, but it seems logical. There must be some kind of economic benefit for Facebook, Google, AT&T, Verizon, etc. to save and provide this data. Perhaps they even help organize it for the "requesting entities".
The short answer: You should have already presumed this was happening. Did you really think they'd allow this opportunity to pass them up?
One may also argue that a dictatorship pretty much makes a state work like a corporation : you don't have anything to say about the way the thing is run.
Dropbox better come out ASAP with a formal response to this. But honestly, it might not even matter because if the NSA has targeted Dropbox, any betting man would say that it is already part of the problem.
Ugh...
Look at some of the discussions where these companies' carefully worded denials are parsed, they aren't really denying it. E.g. "back doors" aren't an issue when a NSL is used to come through the front door.
If you're a terrorist, why would you use any of these pre-built services? There are so many ways to do point-to-point, encrypted at both ends...
I guess when I hear "Dragnet"... the only people I see getting swept into it is innocent people and really, really, really stupid terrorists.
Also they have their hooks in Microsoft and Apple. It stands to reason that means a backdoor in each of the operating systems, as well.
You'd have to really be paranoid to avoid this. Using an opensource OS find an open access point, with no surveillance cameras anywhere, use it only for your encrypted communication and nothing else, and then leave and never come back. And obviously, don't bring a cellphone with you.
Considering this was top secret, I would bet that a lot of persons of interest didn't know about PRISM either, making it a lot harder to realize that they fucked up.
In countries like Russia where police and intelligence services have unlimited power, every provider is obliged to collect and keep such logs for use of authorities.
The first thing that authorities around the globe are copying from each other is any kind of scam that gives them even an illusion of more "control" over the people. Why should it be different in US?)
And of course, such programs are great opportunities to allocate and "utilize" (read: steal) millions of government money.
If it ever trickles down to DEA or local police then it's a problem. If secret courts and SQL dumps become standard procedure then everything falls apart. If this is considered constitutional I don't know how you're going to tell Officer Shitforbrains he can't look at your phone records and Google search history to find out where you bought that joint.
Wish I could say that I was surprised.