RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet?

RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aswad -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/15/2013 10:49:00 PM)
As a sidebar, part of the problem with such topics is that, without an accessible introduction to a relevant aspect of the topic for the layman, one will inevitably end up with any conversation on it focusing on aspects that are irrelevant, or aspects of interest only to the specialist (as the specialist generally won't disagree on the main aspects). For instance, in regard to climate change, it is easy to get derailed into thinking about global warming. We know that global warming isn't a major problem: simply changing every black or red roof out there to a white vinyl roof (or even using white paint or whitewash) will make global warming go away. Literally. But CO2 emissions lead to global ocean acidification, which is a massive problem for which no known remedy exists. That's what we should be debating with regard to climate change. And with regard to surveillance programmes like PRISM, the question isn't whether we can store everything, or whether this allows us to dig up dirt on people to pressure them out of politics. Rather, it is about how we can identify the people that hold together movements for social change, or isolate subcultures of interest. Granted, by extension, there is a major related question of morality laws that should interest us, as a highly visible (in SNA) subculture with a lifestyle that a lot of posters here have stated that they might lose their jobs or kids if they were found to be associated with, and that a lot of people would like to extinguish through law, much like many people would like to return to the days when LGBTs were illegal, another highly visible subculture. How long until countries with such laws already in place establish similar infrastructure, or rent ours? And do we really want a turnkey method of cracking down in place? Are we so certain that times have changed irrevocably in our favor? That a day cannot come when we again face real, legal repercussions for what we do and who we are? Considering how reluctant the US population has been to accept universal healthcare, it boggles the mind that anyone would accept this. People seem to worry about guns carried in their vincinity, and this is a big frickin' gun. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/15/2013 10:53:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic They very helpfully assist them in building and planting "bombs" that don't go boom, when the button is pushed. See the attempted Christmas tree bombing in Portland Oregon, or the bridgebusting Occupists/anarchists in Ohio. Good to know. I'm going to assume those bombers would've been successful without such intervention, despite not being able to tell that their efforts were being foiled by the "helping" hand of law enforcement. Around these parts, they tend to blow themselves up when that's their level of competence. Natural selection at work. Still, if "dozens" of terrorist attacks have been prevented, out of over 30.000 individuals tracked, does this mean there's 29.000 more terrorist attacks in the making? If so, how did you guys ever get by? Because, as far as I can tell, the number of successful mass murders and terrorist attacks have been on the rise a while. IWYW, — Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/15/2013 11:43:38 PM)
~ FR ~ The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls... 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... 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... Earlier reports have indicated that the NSA has the ability to record nearly all domestic and international phone calls... That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications. Brewster Kahle, a computer engineer who founded the Internet Archive, has vast experience storing large amounts of data. He created a spreadsheet this week estimating that the cost to store all domestic phone calls a year in cloud storage for data-mining purposes would be about $27 million per year, not counting the cost of extra security for a top-secret program and security clearances for the people involved. NSA's annual budget is classified but is estimated to be around $10 billion. Source K.

Kirata -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 12:18:36 AM)
But not to worry... Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano weighed in on the NSA intelligence leaks on Friday, telling NY1 that fears over government surveillance were overblown. “I think people have gotten the idea that there’s an Orwellian state out there that somehow we’re operating in. That’s far from the case.” Well alrighty then. K.

popeye1250 -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 2:42:16 AM)
They said on the news tonight that "Google" and "Facebook" "willingly gave the NSA information about members, approx. "10,000."

DaddySatyr -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 4:35:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 They said on the news tonight that "Google" and "Facebook" "willingly gave the NSA information about members, approx. "10,000." "Willingly" as in: they felt it was their duty or "willingly" as in: if they didn't do it, they'd get shut down? Either way, if google and facebook didn't put up something of a fight, maybe people who value their privacy should willingly boycott both entities. Peace and comfort, Michael

DomKen -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 5:22:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 They said on the news tonight that "Google" and "Facebook" "willingly gave the NSA information about members, approx. "10,000." "Willingly" as in: they felt it was their duty or "willingly" as in: if they didn't do it, they'd get shut down? Either way, if google and facebook didn't put up something of a fight, maybe people who value their privacy should willingly boycott both entities. Peace and comfort, Michael They both posted a press release stating they cooperated with various subpoenas, court orders and warrants, from all levels of government in the US, a certain number of times in the last 6 months of 2012. http://newsroom.fb.com/News/636/Facebook-Releases-Data-Including-All-National-Security-Requests http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/06/14/microsoft-s-u-s-law-enforcement-and-national-security-requests-for-last-half-of-2012.aspx

DomKen -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 5:23:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls... 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... 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... Earlier reports have indicated that the NSA has the ability to record nearly all domestic and international phone calls... That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications. Brewster Kahle, a computer engineer who founded the Internet Archive, has vast experience storing large amounts of data. He created a spreadsheet this week estimating that the cost to store all domestic phone calls a year in cloud storage for data-mining purposes would be about $27 million per year, not counting the cost of extra security for a top-secret program and security clearances for the people involved. NSA's annual budget is classified but is estimated to be around $10 billion. Source K. This sort of thing is what people should be worried about and taking action on not some crazy fantasy that the NSA is storing everyone's internet activity.

TheHeretic -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 8:04:44 AM)
Good links, K. Thanks!

littlewonder -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 9:18:27 AM)
Thanks for the link. I was just about to post it. Glad I read the rest of the thread. So basically, as you can see, it's not the entire network but certain companies and it seems only about 1%. And it's not like these companies were forced into it. They willingly gave the info, feeling that to do so they were helping to protect the country. Twitter even admits they gave willingly for that very reason. All these companies are complaining about is that they wish there was transparency. The problem with that is, once you give transparency, it kinda defeats the purpose of why NSA is doing this.

Aswad -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 2:52:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder So basically, as you can see, it's not the entire network but certain companies and it seems only about 1%. The entire network doesn't collaborate, no. Just the relevant percentage of it. Additionally, of course, compromised backbone routers. quote: And it's not like these companies were forced into it. They willingly gave the info, feeling that to do so they were helping to protect the country. They were either compensated or legally required to. Trust me: they don't give two shits about the country. It's the bottom line for them, all the way. These are some of the most cynical companies out there. quote: The problem with that is, once you give transparency, it kinda defeats the purpose of why NSA is doing this. How so? Security through obscurity is worse than no security at all, as a general rule. IWYW, — Aswad.

MrRodgers -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 3:03:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We already went over this, it is both technically unlikely Well Ken... I'm afraid at this point you are arguing with actual, known, factual reality. I have no answer for you. The rest of the readers will need to determine for themselves if the GAO and zillions of leaks and several direct comments from various NSA directors are all wrong and your wild speculation are correct. , Well in our system the problem is that out of almost 1800 warrant requests, requests for intel intercept through FISA, only 3...were refused. That gives cause to believe the govt. gets whatever it wants out of this court. This has been going on for years and before Obama got up there and continues to reduce confidence in govt. This is the consent part of becoming a fascist country...still no need for conquest.

jlf1961 -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 3:39:05 PM)
Are you saying that the emails to associates detailing the plans to plant disguised drums of liquified bovine produced organic fertilizer and blowing them up in such a way as to cover a large number of people (politicians and local well to do supporters) with bullshit is now known by the NSA?

DomKen -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 4:14:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We already went over this, it is both technically unlikely Well Ken... I'm afraid at this point you are arguing with actual, known, factual reality. I have no answer for you. The rest of the readers will need to determine for themselves if the GAO and zillions of leaks and several direct comments from various NSA directors are all wrong and your wild speculation are correct. , Well in our system the problem is that out of almost 1800 warrant requests, requests for intel intercept through FISA, only 3...were refused. That gives cause to believe the govt. gets whatever it wants out of this court. This has been going on for years and before Obama got up there and continues to reduce confidence in govt. This is the consent part of becoming a fascist country...still no need for conquest. Check with your local police department about how many search warrant requests they have denied in a year. Do you really think any LEO or spook is going to present a warrant request to a judge without having enough probable cause.

MrRodgers -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 6:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We already went over this, it is both technically unlikely Well Ken... I'm afraid at this point you are arguing with actual, known, factual reality. I have no answer for you. The rest of the readers will need to determine for themselves if the GAO and zillions of leaks and several direct comments from various NSA directors are all wrong and your wild speculation are correct. , Well in our system the problem is that out of almost 1800 warrant requests, requests for intel intercept through FISA, only 3...were refused. That gives cause to believe the govt. gets whatever it wants out of this court. This has been going on for years and before Obama got up there and continues to reduce confidence in govt. This is the consent part of becoming a fascist country...still no need for conquest. Check with your local police department about how many search warrant requests they have denied in a year. Do you really think any LEO or spook is going to present a warrant request to a judge without having enough probable cause. Well according to another post about my friends case, all the police need to do is an 'administrative' inventory of the net and the 4th amend. is dead. Do you really think that there is a contested hearing as in a court room to determine the validity of a given cyber warrant ? NO. In fact as has been described many times, the search and determination of the validity of data occurs for some time before authorities even apply for a warrant. Then with only 3 denied...well I don't need to know anymore. There is no way I trust govt. as it is and even less so collecting any data. I still say that all of this prevents little in the way of the big conspiracy yet we are witnessing the construction of a govt. cyber backbone for collecting data on Americans.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 7:40:25 PM)
Love this...is the govt. intruding on our privacy? Uh huh. (It didn't start last week....for the record).

littlewonder -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 8:07:06 PM)
quote: How so? Security through obscurity is worse than no security at all, as a general rule. Once there's transparency, the bad guy knows what you are doing and how and this just gives them the opportunity to find another way around it so they will not be detected. Also if there is transparency, information gets out about who they are searching for, and being it's transparent, that person now will know and it will be easier for them to escape and hide so they won't be caught.

DomKen -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 8:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We already went over this, it is both technically unlikely Well Ken... I'm afraid at this point you are arguing with actual, known, factual reality. I have no answer for you. The rest of the readers will need to determine for themselves if the GAO and zillions of leaks and several direct comments from various NSA directors are all wrong and your wild speculation are correct. , Well in our system the problem is that out of almost 1800 warrant requests, requests for intel intercept through FISA, only 3...were refused. That gives cause to believe the govt. gets whatever it wants out of this court. This has been going on for years and before Obama got up there and continues to reduce confidence in govt. This is the consent part of becoming a fascist country...still no need for conquest. Check with your local police department about how many search warrant requests they have denied in a year. Do you really think any LEO or spook is going to present a warrant request to a judge without having enough probable cause. Well according to another post about my friends case, all the police need to do is an 'administrative' inventory of the net and the 4th amend. is dead. Do you really think that there is a contested hearing as in a court room to determine the validity of a given cyber warrant ? NO. In fact as has been described many times, the search and determination of the validity of data occurs for some time before authorities even apply for a warrant. Then with only 3 denied...well I don't need to know anymore. There is no way I trust govt. as it is and even less so collecting any data. I still say that all of this prevents little in the way of the big conspiracy yet we are witnessing the construction of a govt. cyber backbone for collecting data on Americans. There is never a contested hearing to get a warrant. In general a LEO presents an affidavit specifying the probable cause and what is to be searched for and the judge eithers grants the warrant or doesn't. Checking around it is very unusual for any warrant to be denied because no one wants to go to a judge and get smacked down.

Aswad -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 8:43:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Once there's transparency, the bad guy knows what you are doing and how and this just gives them the opportunity to find another way around it so they will not be detected. Point one: it's not just the bad guys. I'd rather the bad guys know than the good guys not knowing. Point two: if your plan hinges on the bad guys not knowing what you're doing, then it's a lousy plan. Point three: if the bad guys know what you're doing, they leave more traces than when they have to assume the worst, with Breivik as a point in case. Point four: doing anything substantial without leaving traces is very difficult, regardless of transparency, and the actual difficulty doesn't change much with the introduction of transparency. Point five: some bad guys tend to turn into good guys with historical hindsight. Have a look at TheHeretic's link (on page 2) to the blog entry showing some of the significance of the sort of analyses they do. Or my comments on the fact that most civil rights pioneers and the like have been criminals at some point, and how we wouldn't have seen the advances we have, if we could reliably catch them all. Perfect crime fighting is perfectly undesireable, and eliminating all bad guys also eliminates all good guys on a longer timeline. Point six: everyone's a criminal. quote: Also if there is transparency, information gets out about who they are searching for, and being it's transparent, that person now will know and it will be easier for them to escape and hide so they won't be caught. Nobody's talking about letting everyone know who's currently being searched for. We're talking about letting everyone know what means are used to search, and what we're giving up in terms of privacy, as well as what we're getting in return for it, and opening up these balancing acts to public review, since it's the public's interests that are supposed to be served by these agencies. Also, this system isn't about searching for specific individuals, it's about determining who you may or may not wish to search for, by casting a wide net. In fact, a net so wide that it encompasses virtually the entire population without any grounds for suspicion. Then you pick out some fraction you consider the most likely persons of potential interest, and have a closer look at those, again without grounds for suspicion. If any of them seem suspicious, or tickle your fancy, then you start searching. IWYW, — Aswad.

littlewonder -> RE: Is the Govt. "tapping" the Internet? (6/16/2013 9:38:25 PM)
From even before the advent of the internet, I've always just assumed I'm being watched by someone or other be it the people in the small town where I grew up, to the teachers in school to my sisters and parents to our own government. <shrug> All of this isn't news to me. It's been going on for longer than most imagine. I kinda find it surprising that so many are up in arms about it now. Why not 20 years ago when it was pointed out? Do people complain about the cameras on the street corners that are always watching them? Or the cameras at their workplace or the ones in the grocery stores or any other type of data that is collected on them by just about everywhere and anyone? So why is this such a big deal all of a sudden?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875