Sauer_Kraut

While I wouldn't consider the comment down-vote worth as someone else deemed it, I find one part I have to respond to.

"if you're not from the US, I feel like you should have known that was a possibility."

Known exactly what was a possibility? In another comment I brought up Endgame Systems, here is some of their offerings:

'There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies. Maui (product names tend toward alluring warm-weather locales) is a package of 25 zero-day exploits that runs clients $2.5 million a year. The Cayman botnet-analytics package gets you access to a database of Internet addresses, organization names, and worm types for hundreds of millions of infected computers, and costs $1.5 million.'

When you say 'foreigners' should have known the NSA "doing their thing" so to speak is a possibility, does that include them being exploited, or their stolen financial/personal information on botnets being used by the NSA?

Why do you keep stating such things as "he's trying to keep it safe" or "NSA is trying to help the citizens of the US."

Do you have information on this or do you keep on stating your opinion as fact?

No, no.

edit: Tried to respond below but have been "submitting too fast" while submitting nothing for far too long to care to wait more.

I am not saying the NSA has flawless execution, you are the one repeating it for whatever reason.

I'm saying the NSA/Administration when pushed had to put out something that showed the spying was 'working.' In response they said multiples of domestic plots were foiled. Given the lack of full disclosure as to what the US's secret laws are secretly doing, we are forced to parse the headlines and the body count of the population for information on what has happened, where people went.

Problem is there is only a handful of incidents revealed to the public. The Boston bombers don't count because even though they fit NSA criteria for observation they apparently had no clue about their actions. The Al-Shabaab money provider was explicitly mentioned, so that is one.

Since we know the US kidnaps and tortures people, then makes every attempt to have the guilty escape[1], we don't require further evidence to ask the questions:

Where are the bodies, living or dead, of the others involved in domestic cases the NSA said they helped foil? The NSA says the program is for terrorists, the US government is known to rendition their victims away to be tortured under claims of them being terrorists. This has been documented enough to appease you.

If the NSA's spying program is not meant to result in the kidnapping and torture of others, what is it for? Bringing people to court?

Again, where are those involved in the domestic incidents cited as being foiled by the NSA?

Not all in court, that is for sure.

[1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/18/how_a_cia_off...

"Realistically these companies don't have much choice"

Of course they do. They can comply or not. If they do not comply they may face court. Of course it is impossible to say how that court would go since none of them are making a choice to stop being co-conspirators.

"I know it for the same reason I know unicorns and leprechauns don't exist - there is no credible evidence supporting it."

Of course there is no credible evidence when evidence is known to be actively suppressed. See: 'Intel Laundering.'

Also the US boasts that spying resulted in thwarted attempts. Where are those court cases? More importantly, where are the bodies of those involved? Sure is easy to not have credible evidence when all evidence aside from one sided snippets and meaningless statistics is never published.

edit: diminoten sure shifts goal posts around a lot. Changing persons to US persons, etc.

Aside from the details that show the NSA having employees in companies install monitoring hardware worldwide? Or those that assist in providing data in return for some themselves?

None of that counts to you because "there's just no reason to believe such a thing." You are essentially saying you don't believe anything you may have read in the past few years counts as control.

What IS control then, other than the ability to control others, which the US/NSA has attempting to keep on top of since the shift in data traffic trends in the 1990s.

"No one has "control" over the Internet."

Aside from the people who control the hardware, and the NSA/others seem to have control over those people, getting them to install monitoring hardware.

"I also don't like this, "us vs. them" rhetoric"

I am able to be prosecuted for creating "hacking tools" while Endgame Systems has the NSA pay them a million+ a year to access data from those "hacking tools."

'There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies. Maui (product names tend toward alluring warm-weather locales) is a package of 25 zero-day exploits that runs clients $2.5 million a year. The Cayman botnet-analytics package gets you access to a database of Internet addresses, organization names, and worm types for hundreds of millions of infected computers, and costs $1.5 million.[1]'

In this environment of immunity granted to profiteers while my friends and I are prosecuted, it is "us vs. them."

Stop attempting to blow out meaningless opinions like "The NSA is on our side" in response to articles showing the opposite.

[1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems

Too big to be considered anything but fellow conspirators.

Deciphering the doublespeak is tough. "Touches" implies, at least to me, data that passes through hardware controlled one way or another by the NSA or it's corporate affiliates.

It's affiliates..

That brings me to "The reality is the NSA has no physical ability to touch 1/4 of the basketball court." As we know the NSA hires corporations like Booz Allen, another such corporate entity is Endgame Systems[1]. In terms of courts Endgame dabbles in collections and offensive operations that cover the entire court:

"There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies. Maui (product names tend toward alluring warm-weather locales) is a package of 25 zero-day exploits that runs clients $2.5 million a year."

"The Cayman botnet-analytics package gets you access to a database of Internet addresses, organization names, and worm types for hundreds of millions of infected computers, and costs $1.5 million."

The use of malware, most probably the very malware others are prosecuted for, gives the NSA a limited but as cgshaw noted valuable foothold into otherwise dark neighborhoods of the net.

[1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems

"You're generally just supposed to know the law. Nobody necessarily tells it to you."

If no one tells you, then how are you meant to know?

How?

It would happen at the same time as the closing of Guantanamo Bay, I imagine.

Sure thing buddy, extremely large whales absorbing a pond of little fish will make the price (rate of exchange relative to whatever currency you fancy) more stable.

All sarcasm aside I highly doubt this will be a good thing for end users of bitcoin.

You assume that I made that assumption, that is wrong.

My position is those attempting to cause change from within have while at work helped give inertia and acceptance to what they think they want to fight against while at home watching the evening news.

Nothing stops them from finding other venues of employment, many excuses are made as to how they want to fight from within. We end up with users on forums attempting to defend their profiting from the entire ordeal. Complicit.

Essentially I am saying working from within is only a good choice for those who find themselves already in that position, like Snowden. Otherwise more harm is done.

Right, it is called disengaging, but that is not what you did. You yourself choose to waste your time and energy on this.

How did it waste your time? How is that a reason to attempt to moderate the comment from others by actively down-voting it?

What.

Naturally my mind went to how investigations need to brew after data acquisition, but withholding bits of an investigation for those reasons is entirely proper as well.

In an era of journalism changing to be more distributed and less structured there is a multitude of ways the US government's revising seems foul. This is of course completely aside from what you said above, letting officials and others lie themselves into a box.

It seems rather dire that dissemination of information is being attacked on several fronts by what seems to be a wounded beast of a government lashing out at those around it, persons/careers/activists/even methods themselves.

Someone is terribly mad at sane suggestions and commentary today. Yet another seemingly reasonable comment down-voted.

From the article: 'The judge said she wasn't ready to rule on the government's suggested remedies to eliminate antitrust behavior. She seemed dismayed as she noted that the publishers and Apple seemed to express together their opposition to some government recommendations, "reflecting a seriously continuing danger of collusion."'

I do not blame her, Apple along with others are behaving more and more petulant as not many are putting up resistance. I would love a good hard look at how market favors are given to firms like Apple for 'work' rendered back to the US federal government.

Didn't some hardware sales block recently get overruled by Commander in Chief Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the United States? Interesting reasoning used, if I recall.

A better suited title would be: 'Press Paid To Fail To Ask Any NSA Questions At President Obama’s NSA Press Conference'

This fits entirely into the US government putting a noose on what journalists are and how they must act:

"The person also must intend to report on the news at the start of obtaining any protected information and must plan to publish that news."

"Feinstein suggested that the definition comprise only journalists who make salaries, saying it should be applied just to "real reporters."[1]"

[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130807/13153224102/sen-fe...

edit: Amused myself by imaging a panicked Glenn Greenwald clutching a bunch of print-outs, shouting to a camera that he doesn't know what these are but by god they are SOMETHING.

I never said anything was black and white, just that a very large amount of people have become complicit in what they acknowledge as wrong-doings.

As to working within the system, attempting to halt or mitigate what you view as malfeasance is indeed not complying. Merely suggesting though, that people are working within doesn't do much in the face of the number of those working for without care or question.

Yes people have to make the choice of being complicit or face going to jail in some cases. Most just need to stop defending their profiting from the murder/kidnapping/torture/rendition/detention/prosecution of others. Providing infrastructural support like telecommunications is indeed an enabler for industries like drone warfare.

It's called "The World" as you put it.

After being informed nearly daily of how one's work assists another in their deeds, then continuing to accept salary, it is compliance and complicity.

Others have shown they do not need to comply, to various ends. Snowden[1], Klein[2], Manning[3], Barrett[4], Levison[5]. This is a terribly narrow range of those who refused and resisted in recent history. From admin to technician to analyst to activist to owner, you can indeed not become complicit with the US government or others after learning knowledge of malfeasance.

Please leave the poor sprouts out of this.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Brown

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit

What moral imperatives were implied?

As I referenced in another thread, Obama himself voted for the FISA amendment[1].

How clearer must it get that people working for companies like AT&T and Booz Allen are complicit in receiving monetary remuneration for collaborating with various arms of the government in circumventing/intel laundering/routing around the laws and regulations said arms of the government were to be checking each other against?

Must there need be more details of local law enforcement letting Steven Seagal maraud around in federally sourced tanks? Booz Allen assisting local law enforcement in copyright prosecutions? Drone managing SAIC running private monitoring centers with federal fusion center support?

AT&T workers NOT going along with what management puts forward, revealing secret closets instead. Or services shutting down to prevent such hardware from ever being installed?

The US government, all branches, are corrupt by being complicit in each others deeds. Together along with employees within corporations that collaborate with the US government, law is being undone or outright ignored.

Refuse, resist.

[1] H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ) Obama (D-IL), Yea: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

The US government has been making a huge issue of who is a "real" journalist as to ensure journalist protection does not happen spread to very articulate, well informed, level headed bloggers.

This is serious.

Lies[1].

[1] H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ) Obama (D-IL), Yea: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

True that, from my POV I received requests on an event by event basis. Many of these people probably had to sign as part of employment.

AOL is a public company. It's actions at large events are public unless explicitly noted otherwise.

What is large? Stagehand here, 1000+ is large. I've been made to sign agreements for smaller venues.

Edit: To elaborate, smaller venues can easily close doors. Not so much in auditoriums or arenas. Concession is selling goods, other building customers are milling about right behind your event's curtains. Employees of the building are milling about as well, waiting for your talking to be done with.

Pipe and drape is not a privacy filter. You are often in a private space used by the public.

Rather pissed edit: Now that I think about it, this guy is at the helm of a company that sells out people's privacy to anyone with cash and legal assurances. He is firing someone for using a camera while booming his voice over a PA[1] system much like those my friends and I have handled over the years. Screw him.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_address_system

Why are open questions being down-voted? Is there something wrong with the questions?

A video like what?

What about the video contents mandates it shouldn't be recorded?

Was the person under NDA? Forbidden from filming beforehand?

The most of you seem to be leaping to the defense of the CEO for something that could've been a personal action based on a perceived slight instead of a corporate policy.

Out of the 1,000 or so there, wonder how many others started to record as soon as that went down. To also start recording would've been my immediate reaction.