Obama Admin. admits to surveillance methods: Beating a Dead Horse Pt. 74

  On 6/15/2013 at 4:10 AM, Kcinsu said:

Seriously, does no one have any imagination at all?

 

Are you all complete optimists when it comes to human nature?

 

Do people have any knowledge of history, both human history and US history?

 

How anyone can have a positive or indifferent attitude about this just blows my mind.

Why don't you tell me how this impacts you as an individual, on an individual level, so that I understand?

Those in power decide who criminals are. Someone that wasn't a criminal yesterday can be one tomorrow with a simple act of legislation.

Do you really want your entire history of communications available to a government that now defines you as a criminal?

Are you familiar with the famous quote:

"First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me."

  On 6/15/2013 at 4:22 AM, Kcinsu said:

Those in power decide who criminals are. Someone that wasn't a criminal yesterday can be one tomorrow with a simple act of legislation.

 

Do you really want your entire history of communications available to a government that now defines you as a criminal?

 

Are you familiar with the famous quote:

 

"First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me."

I'm not familiar with that saying. But I do understand what you're saying..

It's unknown how the goverment will deal with dissidents in the future and who will be considered a dissident or enemy of the state. A surveillance state is dangerous because it puts too much power into the hands of the state. There is a concerning lack of transparency on these matters which can only leave us guessing what data is being gathered, what it is used or will be used for or even how effective it is in fighting whatever the state thinks it needs to waste millions of dollars on. The state doesn't need all this data to protect its citizens, yet we let them trample our rights in the name of security. No camera will save my life or state.

Most of us have grown up in a reasonably stable political climate but if you look at human history you shouldn't take that for granted. So let's say you have to rebel against your state in 10 or 20 years. It may not happen, but it might. The state now has a complete profile on you. Who your friends are, where you lived, every single person you had contact with and to what extend you had contact with them is known to the state. They know every place you ever visited. They have so many pictures of you an algorithm can recognize your face on a camera in milliseconds. They have a voice profile of you so you can't make any phone calls without being traced to your exact location.

So why would we give them any of that? Do you really think the government needs all that data? Do you really think this is an effective method of protecting us considering the damage it can do?

I get the feeling that the govt will greenlight anything that is claimed will enhance nat'l security these days, because who wants to be the guy who gets blamed for not approving something the next time there is a terrorist attack?

With this in mind, I plan to design a fleshlight with arabic on the side, that I'll market to the CIA at $50 apiece, as a means to "stop the next generation of terrorists before they are even conceived." Anyone want in?

  On 6/15/2013 at 4:33 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 6/15/2013 at 4:22 AM, Kcinsu said:

Those in power decide who criminals are. Someone that wasn't a criminal yesterday can be one tomorrow with a simple act of legislation.

 

Do you really want your entire history of communications available to a government that now defines you as a criminal?

 

Are you familiar with the famous quote:

 

"First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

I'm not familiar with that saying. But I do understand what you're saying..

 

It's from a pastor from Germany, when the Nazi's started rounding people up.

read more about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

"he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. His crime was “not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement"

So when the next group takes power, they check your internet history, and see you've spoken poorly about this group. Off to jail with you.

Sound fantastical? This was less than 100 years ago.

  On 6/15/2013 at 5:12 AM, Kcinsu said:

 

  On 6/15/2013 at 4:33 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 6/15/2013 at 4:22 AM, Kcinsu said:

Those in power decide who criminals are. Someone that wasn't a criminal yesterday can be one tomorrow with a simple act of legislation.

 

Do you really want your entire history of communications available to a government that now defines you as a criminal?

 

Are you familiar with the famous quote:

 

"First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

I'm not familiar with that saying. But I do understand what you're saying..

 

 

It's from a pastor from Germany, when the Nazi's started rounding people up.

 

read more about it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

 

"he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. His crime was “not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement"

 

So when the next group takes power, they check your internet history, and see you've spoken poorly about this group. Off to jail with you.

 

Sound fantastical? This was less than 100 years ago.

 

Shit, the Stasi were around until 1991.

  On 6/14/2013 at 11:36 PM, MisterE said:

...

it used to be that if you were up to no good and they caught wind of that, they could apply for a warrant and wiretap you, and begin to gather info on you from that point on via your communications. NOW, if you do something bad, they can retroactively see things that you said leading up to that. and again i'm talking about a typical criminal activity, not terrorism. so this opens a whole other area of 'evidence' that never before existed, that's based on stuff you said in private before they ever had any suspicion about you. just that aspect alone is radically transformational to the whole criminal justice process. it's like they could one day request warrants to retroactively spy on you. and that seems to already include actual content of emails you sent, and one day, if not today, likely will include content of your phone calls, even if a bot transcribed them to text for better storage. it could become common practice one day to obtain a warrant to spy on you, backwards in time. and before that becomes an open process, chances are it may be a secret one for a while, maybe reserved for high-profile cases.

 

I'm not sure if I would mind this aspect. Although I must admit that I don't have all the possible consequences in sight of such policies.

In the case of the Boston Bombers I think it would be great if investigators have (complete) access to their complete online history. But that access can only be granted AFTER the crime has been committed, not before! To a certain extent I believe that by committing a crime, people give up their rights to - some - aspects of privacy.

But this is nothing new. Things like warrants have been around since before computers, so this is not much different. I think it would be silly to only grant access to info from the point in time where this access is granted (not someones entire history). In the case of the Boston Bombers, a warrant like this would be pretty useless and would make it practically impossible to understand the motives and find possible connections.

This is a slightly different issue than the NSA using Big Data before any crime has been committed, though. And where third parties are hired by the government to execute these shady practices. Here, transparency is lost. And as a consequence, so is responsibility and finally control (by government and more importantly the electorate).

Not sure if this has come up in the thread yet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

Government constructed dupes!

that made me laugh, seems like a waste of money, no?

man, fucking huge props go to Greenwald for getting this to happen. Almost unbelievable to get a level of acknowledgement like this from the source you're going after. Albeit it was in a 'classified memo' to only members of the house, but still. Because of this article and the consciousness it generated, representatives actually started doing their job and put feet to the fire of the justice department and NSA and as a result we basically get a confirmation of what the original article asserted.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

  Quote

 

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

glenn greenwald is utterly meaningless and is a guy. fyi

  On 6/16/2013 at 12:31 AM, lumpenprol said:

that made me laugh, seems like a waste of money, no?

keeping the masses in their place is always a good deal.

  On 6/16/2013 at 2:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

man, fucking huge props go to Greenwald for getting this to happen. Almost unbelievable to get a level of acknowledgement like this from the source you're going after. Albeit it was in a 'classified memo' to only members of the house, but still. Because of this article and the consciousness it generated, representatives actually started doing their job and put feet to the fire of the justice department and NSA and as a result we basically get a confirmation of what the original article asserted.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

 

 

  Quote

 

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

 

....the fuck? The balls on the NSA are ridiculous.

  Quote

 

 

William Binney, a former NSA technical director who helped to modernize the agency's worldwide eavesdropping network, told the Daily Caller this week that the NSA records the phone calls of 500,000 to 1 million people who are on its so-called target list, and perhaps even more.

(from the article John posted)

.5-1 million people on their so-called target list? So roughly one in every 300 Americans is on their target list? Fuck this.

  On 6/16/2013 at 3:23 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 6/16/2013 at 12:31 AM, lumpenprol said:

that made me laugh, seems like a waste of money, no?

 

keeping the masses in their place is always a good deal.

 

i was replying specifically to the idea of the govt. planting fake users on various internet forums and such to promote the govt. policies. Wait...does that explain Compson?

oddly AOL videos has this really prophetic speech by Russ Feingold explaining pretty much everything we've found out over the last 11 years and why it's so damaging. He was the only senator to vote no on the Patriot Act in October of 2001

edit: i can't find the video anymore so i'm going to upload it here (it's pretty small)

It makes me incredibly sad to read these revelations. Thanks, NSA, and ppl I used to respect at least somewhat like Diane Feinstein, for undermining the great American democratic experiment in one fell swoop.

I'm assuming someone had to give the green light on all of this, curious who it was...Dubya? Cheney? I'm guessing Obama knew about it too, sad...

btw, I was never a fan of wikileaks and Assange, but I do consider Snowden a hero (based on what I've read so far), and a patriot.

still kind of in shock, tbh.

ok, so just after I ranted, I started reading articles saying the spying was wildly overstated. Where's the truth lie, watmmsleuths?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588363-38/u.s-releases-details-on-prism/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

This is jazz from last year but kinda relevant right now

  On 6/16/2013 at 4:49 AM, lumpenprol said:

ok, so just after I ranted, I started reading articles saying the spying was wildly overstated. Where's the truth lie, watmmsleuths?

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588363-38/u.s-releases-details-on-prism/

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

not sure if i've read those exact stories, but no matter how big a leak or inside revelation is the M.O. is to always down play it and say that it's either A) not significant enough to deserve the attention it's getting B) "nothing new" C) it's wildly overstated or exaggerated.

since we've heard the same thing from multiple sources over the past few years, not just Snowden. I think it's safe to say that most of the details are accurate. The problem is they can't have it both ways, the Patriot ACT and NSA telecom immunity bill basically lay this all out. Even if they say they aren't doing things as bad as claimed, they still have the back-door legal authority to do so, so you can make up your own mind on that one.

the favorite among the media for Wikileaks and Manning was option B). Ironic though that they claimed that but then also claimed it put people's lives in danger. How could information that's not 'new' actually harm people? Either way no proof or evidence was ever given that Manning's leak put anyone in danger. We could argue all day about Julian Assange's personal character, but I think it's pretty hard to say Manning did this for the wrong reasons

  On 6/16/2013 at 4:49 AM, lumpenprol said:

ok, so just after I ranted, I started reading articles saying the spying was wildly overstated. Where's the truth lie, watmmsleuths?

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588363-38/u.s-releases-details-on-prism/

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

Somewhere in the middle.

As a response to JE; it's a bit too easy to say "so you can make up your own mind on that one" when there's so much nonsense being spread through the media. Yes, it's obvious people should make up their own mind. And no, that's not a trivial activity. Especially when it's about issues dealing with laws and government.

Most important aspect is to not get too emotionally involved, imo.

O, and I think C should read "it's a danger to the state and an unpatriotic thing to do!". The current C is similar to A. Insignificant and overstated are on the same side of a coin.

*grabs another gogurt*

  On 6/16/2013 at 5:22 AM, roasty said:

This is jazz from last year but kinda relevant right now

 

newer: