Hacker News Reader

Comment by opendais | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure a legitimate extremist would want to use something like TAILs.

I'm more worried about the fact they are tracking people who access articles about tails by the media than I am about that particular component. If you read one article on linuxjournal containing 'tails' you are flagged:

$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux' or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor '); $TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*');

So they aren't really "monitoring extremists" they are monitoring anyone with an interest in security [even if its just a hobby].

View on HN

We have no context for what "flagged" or "monitoring" means, though. There's no indication that these rules are taken to mean anything in isolation beyond what is frankly common sense. The idea that just Googling Tails means you're monitored is a narrative leap.

If I write an email about Viagra, the recipient's spam filter is undoubtedly going to consider it to have a non-zero probability of being spam. That doesn't mean it will be blocked, in the end. Nor does it mean that the spam filter is wrong to take notice.

Yes. But do you honestly expect them to provide that context so we can be sure?

My point is that they (the authors of the article) don't have that context. They're just covering up the lack of information with FUD.

Yes, and the NSA would refuse to give the context...so you have to make assumptions about information about them.

I think those assumptions are not supported by the available evidence[1], and that the authors they know this. Who cares what the NSA says? I'm looking at the same thing the authors are presenting and drawing different conclusions.

[1] Including the abundance of evidence already available about XKEYSCORE.

You have every right to disagree. :)

I think erring on the side of the assumption that is bad for everyone is more likely to be true. Especially since its consistent with the NSA's overreach in other areas.

For instance:

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analy...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-o...

If they break the law over 2,500 times a year with no apparent consequences, do you honestly think its likely you are right? If so, good on you.

Personally, I'd rather assume things are more in line with the other abuses than dismiss them out of hand.

In what way is the assumption that they are tagging/tracking the sessions not consistent with:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013....

The fact some are US-based? But we already know they violate that regularly, 'accidentally'.

The volume of data? We already know they have datacenters large enough to store and analyze it.

I'm genuinely curious why you draw those conclusions.

I think the fact that they can tag us based on what we searched or read is chilling. It's even more chilling that now the argument has been flipped from being appalled that our right to privacy has been utterly destroyed online, to arguing if it's right to be flagged for further review for simply searching or reading about specific subjects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com