Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Accidentally Leaks NSA Suit Information

op12 writes "CNET has an article describing how AT&T accidentally leaked sensitive information involving the NSA lawsuit. From the article: 'AT&T's attorneys this week filed a 25-page legal brief striped with thick black lines that were intended to obscure portions of three pages and render them unreadable. But the obscured text nevertheless can be copied and pasted inside some PDF readers, including Preview under Apple's OS X and the xpdf utility used with X11. The deleted portions of the legal brief seek to offer benign reasons why AT&T would allegedly have a secret room at its downtown San Francisco switching center that would be designed to monitor Internet and telephone traffic. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class action lawsuit in January, alleges that room is used by an unlawful National Security Agency surveillance program.""

274 comments

  1. DMCA anyone? by MarkByers · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the obscured text nevertheless can be copied and pasted inside some PDF readers, including Preview under Apple's OS X and the xpdf utility used with X11.

    Looks like Slashdot is informing readers how to avoid document protection mechanisms. I hope you don't get sued under the DMCA!

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:DMCA anyone? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Freedom of the press vs DMCA.

      Round 1. *FIGHT*

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:DMCA anyone? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Damn, slashdot really will get slammed :( Freedom of any sort is trumped by the IP cartels these days.

    3. Re:DMCA anyone? by JDizzy · · Score: 1

      but this italics means Cnet is the ones who would be, not slashdot.

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    4. Re:DMCA anyone? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Funny

      DMCA wins.

    5. Re:DMCA anyone? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      I did slashdot vs. DMCA and slashdot won by a lot. Incidentally, I noticed that the locale in the URL was "en_GB", so I changed it to "en_US" (since the DMCA is a US thing), but all the results were in french. I guess locale != en_GB means locale = fr_FR. Great programmers... (what can you expect from a flash animation that shows punching, though...)

      --
      My other car is first.
    6. Re:DMCA anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:DMCA anyone? by joduinn · · Score: 1

      "But the obscured text nevertheless can be copied and pasted inside some PDF readers, including Preview under Apple's OS X and the xpdf utility used with X11."

      ...and also Adobe Reader 6.0 on WinXP!

      I just copied/pasted the entire PDF contents, and could read all the redacted text without any difficulty. Took about 2seconds, but my machine is slow...

    8. Re:DMCA anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Getting off topic, but you might like to know that... It does not matter in which country you violated DMC(P)A, what matters that you may be prosecuted in the US for the said violation.

      So, if you broke the DMC(P)A in another country, you may still end up in jail if either:

      1) Your country has an extradiction treaty with the US... Most countries do!
      2) You are physically present in the U.S. in a non-protected status (i.e. NOT a diplomat, etc.)
      3) Your country is being/about to be liberated by the U.S. (e.g. Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, France...)

    9. Re:DMCA anyone? by AnyThingButWindows · · Score: 1

      How is it 'protected' if it is readable? Just because their system does NOT WORK doesn't mean that another reader is illegal. Maybe Adobe should be the one sued for false advertising.

      --
      When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
    10. Re:DMCA anyone? by Reverend528 · · Score: 1
      FTDMCA:
      No person shall circumvent a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work

      The contents of this AT&T document is being protected by Security Through Obscurity. And as we all know, Security through obscurity has never effectively controlled access to anything.

  2. Oh crap by Intron · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now xpdf will be banned under the DMCA.

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    1. Re:Oh crap by TheRealDamion · · Score: 1

      I don't know why this is scored as funny, it's quite serious. It could well happen.

    2. Re:Oh crap by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      heh heh - I wouldn't worry about that to much - believe it or not Acrobat 7 managed to export all the "redacted" text perfectly fine too.

    3. Re:Oh crap by ThePengwin · · Score: 1

      You can Coppy and paste from Adobe reader into notepad and its all there... On noes!! did i just break the law??

  3. right... by koroviev+(begemot) · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Everyone is naked!", the king shouted ..

    1. Re:right... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to offer AT&T a healthy Simpson's Nelson HA HA!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:right... by legallyillegal · · Score: 1

      ...excellent...

      --
      ?giS
  4. Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by BrynM · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From TFA:
    Lawyers for the Justice Department have offered to fly a courier from Washington to San Francisco with classified documents that Walker could review in private--documents that, in the eyes of the government, will convince him to dismiss the lawsuit. (The Bush administration also argues that EFF lawyers should not be permitted to see the classified information.)
    I can just imagine what's in those documents... "here's a picture of your granddaughter next to one of our agents at school... here's a picture of your toothbrush - I wonder what's on it... Here's a picture of your wife sitting at home masturbating thinking she was alone (heh)... Here's a picture of you and your secretary."

    Sorry, but with this administration, it's hard not to assume some underhanded strong-armin^^^^^ persuasion.

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    1. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by packetmon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Cryptome has had copies of these documents for some time (about a week). You should take some time to read them. This gentleman falls in line with Michael Lynn who lost his job for disclosing Cisco's flaws. With the government wanting to monitor everything and its mother, I think it serves them right to have the truth exposed. If you'd like an interesting read, read on:

      mass surveillance of the entire population is logically plausible if NSA's domestic spying is not looking for terrorists, but looking for something else, something that is not so rare as terrorists. For example, the May 19 Fox News opinion poll of 900 registered voters found that 30% dislike the Bush administration so much they want him impeached. If NSA were monitoring email and phone calls to identify pro-impeachment people, and if the accuracy rate were .90 and the error rate were .01, then the probability that people are pro-impeachment given that NSA surveillance system identified them as such, would be p=.98, which is coming close to certainty (p_1.00). Mass surveillance by NSA of all Americans' phone calls and emails would be very effective for domestic political intelligence.

      But finding a few terrorists by mass surveillance of the phone calls and email messages of 300 million Americans is mathematically impossible, and NSA certainly knows that. The Politics of Paranoia and Intimidation
      Anyhow, here's an unredacted excerpt:

      In January 2003, I, along with others, toured the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco -- actually three floors of an SBC building. There I saw a new room being built adjacent to the 4ESS switch room where the public's phone calls are routed. I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room. The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room.
    2. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Speare · · Score: 4, Funny

      Here's a little "political-cartoon-style" diagram I put together a week ago on this topic: http://halley.cc/2006-05-16.hidden.agenda.jpg

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    3. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by damian+cosmas · · Score: 1

      mass surveillance of the entire population is logically plausible if NSA's domestic spying is not looking for terrorists, but looking for something else, something that is not so rare as terrorists. For example, the May 19 Fox News opinion poll of 900 registered voters found that 30% dislike the Bush administration so much they want him impeached. If NSA were monitoring email and phone calls to identify pro-impeachment people, and if the accuracy rate were .90 and the error rate were .01, then the probability that people are pro-impeachment given that NSA surveillance system identified them as such, would be p=.98, which is coming close to certainty (p_1.00). Mass surveillance by NSA of all Americans' phone calls and emails would be very effective for domestic political intelligence.

      Just to find people who want Bush impeached? I could probably pick them out of the Whole Foods parking lot with at least 80% accuracy just while walking back to my car with my groceries. But I do live in Massachusetts.

      Seriously, though, there are ca. 63 million registered Democrats out of ca. 204 million eligible voters. That's 31 per cent right there, and that's all a matter of public record. There are more effective and simpler methods of gathering domestic political intelligence.

      Besides, who cares which inconsequential individuals want the president impeached? There are only 435 people whose opinions matter in that case, and then 100 more if it goes to trial.

    4. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by packetmon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Besides, who cares which inconsequential individuals want the president impeached? Lets reverse this and search for those dissidents who are leaking information to the public shall we? How about the person who reported the Plame leak? How about the person who reported the CIA torture in Abu Ghraib? It seems this system would favor the current administration in weeding out dissidents and disaffected government employees more than it would help them find terrorists. Outside of this argument lets look at what the government said before shall we? " Once the exclusive domain of the National Security Agency, the super-secret U.S. agency responsible for developing and cracking electronic codes, encryption has become the everyday tool of Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, Albania, Britain, Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Syria, the USA, the West Bank and Gaza and Yemen, U.S. officials say. It's become so fundamental to the operations of these groups that bin Laden and other Muslim extremists are teaching it at their camps in Afghanistan and Sudan, they add." source .. So what you have is FUD being pushed at this point. First they're stating the terrorists are using and I quote "UNBREAKABLE CRYPTO". Well golly gee Wilbur, if they're using unbreakable crypto then why bother tapping them. Give me a break. This administration is doing everything it can to erode basic rights such as privacy under the crapaganda term of "Homeland Security". How about securing my communications from eavesdropping, wouldn't that TRULY be homeland security.

    5. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by rm999 · · Score: 1

      "But finding a few terrorists by mass surveillance of the phone calls and email messages of 300 million Americans is mathematically impossible"

      I disagree - if the government finds out someone is a "terrorist" (which I think is a loaded term in this day and age, so I use quotes), they could use some pretty sophisticated machine learning algorithms to find what networks he's in if they have access to his phone records. People tend to clump in certain social networks, and phones calls are a decent way of determining this. A "terrorist" is more likely to be friends with and call other "terrorists." Additionally he is infinitely more likely to make contact with enemies of the state than the average person.

      On the other hand, as someone who wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached, I call plenty of people who don't want to see him impeached. There's literally no correlation you can find without listening to my conversations, which I am guessing this program does not do.

    6. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by damian+cosmas · · Score: 1

      Lets reverse this and search for those dissidents who are leaking information to the public shall we? How about the person who reported the Plame leak?

      We found him; his name's Bob Novak.

      So what you have is FUD being pushed at this point. First they're stating the terrorists are using and I quote "UNBREAKABLE CRYPTO". Well golly gee Wilbur, if they're using unbreakable crypto then why bother tapping them. Give me a break.

      Cryptography is only unbreakable if the key is at least the length of the message and used only once. I'm going to assume that that's not what they're doing. So the NSA should just sniff for encrypted traffic and get to work, right?

      How about securing my communications from eavesdropping, wouldn't that TRULY be homeland security.

      If guys living in tents in central Asia are using "UNBREAKABLE CRYPTO", shouldn't you be?

      and FWIW, my name isn't "Wilbur," and Mr. Ed was a horse, not a jackass.

    7. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to back up a single statement with fact or are you pulling all this out of your ass?

    8. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by packetmon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Wow... Six degrees of separation. Let me tell you what recently happened to me after getting a new phone number in my house... Seems the previous user of this number had credit issues up the wazoo... So let's ponder me getting a number that was used by a terrorist. Should I be labeled guilty by association. Your arguments on this are rather weak. There is no algorithm for determining which communication a terrorist is going to use. After all this same administration touts that the wily terrorists are using crypto. If they are then all arguments of tapping for the sake of weeding out terrorism are flushed down the drain.

      What's next? How about a third reich like system where they allocate an entire demographic region, send all the arabs there and figure out who is who. Would that allay fears? This country is turning into the third reich slowly with their psychological crapaganda getting intermixed with politricks.

      [sil@memnon /usr/home/sil]$ which terrorist
      [sil@memnon /usr/home/sil]$ finger terrorist
      finger: terrorist: no such user
      [sil@memnon /usr/home/sil]$ whereis terrorist
      terrorist:
      [sil@memnon /usr/home/sil]$ find $STATE terrorist | xargs grep -i terror
      Right...
    9. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by packetmon · · Score: 5, Informative
      You're wrong. FACT #1: Novak wrote the column. Cheney and Libby Scooter leaked it to him, read the court documents and get your information correct. FACT#2 Cryptography such as PGP is unbreakable as it is known. Assume? We know the breakdown of that term. FACT#3 If the NSA should decide to sniff encrypted traffic, and if by slight chance they had enough disk space and time to break the message, chances are, within the amount of time needed to break the encryption, an act of terrorism would have been acted out making their sniffing worthless. Takes time to break codes so I suggest you read up on the problems of cracking codes (A Tutorial on Linear and Differential Cryptanalysis)

      128-bit encryption: 0.25 sextillion years. That's barebones SSL. PGP with a 4096 bit key? Right...

    10. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by bunions · · Score: 3, Informative
      People tend to clump in certain social networks, and phones calls are a decent way of determining this.

      This is exactly what the NSA is using the records for. No one is sitting there recording 2 billion phone calls a day. They're building a large call graph and using it as an investigative aid.

      http://www.cogitoinc.com/articles/gsn.htm

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    11. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by bunions · · Score: 1, Insightful
      But finding a few terrorists by mass surveillance of the phone calls and email messages of 300 million Americans is mathematically impossible

      That's an interesting* assertion that I see no proof of in the linked article. And of course, it rests what feeble attempts at proof on (a) complete guesswork and (b) the assumption that phonetapping is the only factor in identifying terrists. That entire article is a complete nonsequiter.

      *by 'interesting' I mean 'stupid'

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    12. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by damian+cosmas · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You're wrong. FACT #1: Novak wrote the column. Cheney and Libby Scooter leaked it to him, read the court documents and get your information correct.

      Not to get too pedantic, but you're still wrong.

      You previously said" "How about the person who reported the Plame leak?". I point this out because you seem unaware of it.

      That means either the guy who wrote the column (Novak), or the person who reported that Novak wrote the column. I'll read the court documents if you read what YOU ALREADY SAID! If you'd said "how about the person who leaked Plame's name" then you'd be correct, but you didn't. This makes you, not me, wrong.

      Think then type. Click on "Preview" before clicking on "Send".

      FACT#2 Cryptography such as PGP is unbreakable as it is known. Assume? We know the breakdown of that term.

      All the claims I've read of PGP qualify "Unbreakable" with terms such as "virtually", "nearly", "as good as", &c, and it certainly isn't advertised as unbreakable. Search pgp.com for the word "unbreakable". I dare you. Regardless, if the NSA can break PGP, it would be stupid to publicize that fact. Presumably it would be classified, or at least not publicized.

      Forgive me for trivializing the claim followed by the words: "golly gee Wilbur", but I did give the correct requirements for "unbreakable cryptography".

      FACT#3 If the NSA should decide to sniff encrypted traffic, and if by slight chance they had enough disk space and time to break the message, chances are, within the amount of time needed to break the encryption, an act of terrorism would have been acted out making their sniffing worthless.

      FACT? No. Assumption on your part, and as you so eloquently observed, we all know the break-down of that term, except insofar as you attempt to apply it to me. Also, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the NSA having enough disk space.

    13. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by samkass · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them? The parent is the most sensible post I've seen so far on the topic. The purpose of creating such a "web" of connections is to segment the population and assign guilt by association with suspicious people. For example, there's a very real chance that if anti-terrorism funding hadn't been cut in 2001 and certain people had been on the ball we'd have stopped some percentage of the September 11th hijackers. However, without some segmentation algorithm that could divide mass intercommunication into groups, we'd probably not have found them all, or even enough to stop the attacks. However, with such an algorithm the associations would probably have stood out in 12-foot tall bold italic letters.

      Does that mean I think the NSA program is good, or lawful? No. However, I think it would be possible to create a program that could do the segmentation while guaranteeing anonymity of the people, where you'd need a court order to uncover the identities of the participants. For this to happen, the phone companies would have to become more involved and pre-process the data, which they're probably pretty scared to do with the ACLU and EFF already jumping down their throats.

      In summary, the system is necessary and wrong, and the reactions to it are counterproductive and righteous.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    14. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by packetmon · · Score: 2

      So again... Fact someone REPORTED THE NAME OF VALERIE PLAME TO NOVAK. Let me type it in english. Someone reported the name Valerie Plame to NOVAK. Since you dared... 1, 2, 3 (Department of Energy, If left alone, Freeh warned, unbreakable encryption poses a threat to fighting crime through wiretapping., Finally... Case Study of HR 695: The Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act... This is where the government decided to place controls on encryption leaving the US because (guess what...) the government cannot break ciphers as easily as you might think. So when I use the term "Unbreakable Crypto", let me make it clear what I mean... Without the keys its impossible... With the keys... Good luck. It would 1) take too long 2) require more space then there currently is ON THE PLANET 3) by the time they cracked it, it would likely mean nothing.

    15. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by zacronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make good points, but here's something else to consider: people tend to clump in social networks when they're not actively trying to avoid such detection. As it has become well-known that examining social networks is a useful technique, you can bet the smart terrorists have taken measures to foil this, and you can also bet the smart terrorists have had tutorials written for the not-so-smart terrorists. While it might still be useful for small-time terrorists, the big boys are most certainly extremely hard to nail down this way.

      So, while I agree with you to some extent, I still have to think that these call records will not produce a lot of results against the targets we are most concerned about. I agree with you that the idea of tracking people who want to impeach Bush is ridiculous... but did you see the article about reporter phone records being used to find leaks? I think social networking would work much better for that task, where the people probably weren't trying as hard to cover their tracks, which is along the lines of what the previous poster was suggesting.

    16. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Vancorps · · Score: 1
      No amount of information gathering would have affected the outcome. There was already enough data to determine that the event was going to happen. There weren't enough resources to process that data and give the right information to the right people. Nothing about this system would change that, only provide yet more information probably causing even more confusion and missing still more events.

      Information gathering is only useful when you can act on the information you obtain. So let's figure out how to act on the information we have before we expand information gathering abilities. This is all regardless of the constitution of course since this whole thing flies in its face.

    17. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      128-bit encryption: 0.25 sextillion years. That's barebones SSL. PGP with a 4096 bit key? Right...

      Firstly, a disclaimer. I'm not saying at all that either SSL or PGP is breakable. But you have shown a serious lack of understanding of cryptography. You're waving these words "128-bit encryption" without an understanding of what it means.

      128-bit encryption with respect to SSL is talking about a symmetric cipher, also known as private-key cryptography. 4096-bits PGP is almost certainly talking about the assymmetric cipher (eg RSA or DSA) also known as public-key cryptography. Comparing 128-bit SSL with 4096-bit PGP shows a serious misunderstanding.

      A few additional notes though. Both SSL and PGP uses both private-key cryptography and public-key cryptography. And even then, a 4096-bit RSA key is generally seen as easier to break than a 4096-bit Ecliptic algorithm key, so details matter. Finally, just because you can't break either 128-bit private key cryptography or 4096-bit public key cryptography, it is still possible for SSL or PGP to be broken. An attacker will focus on the weakest link and there may very well be bugs in either SSL or PGP (eg random number generator, buffer overruns) that open up certain implementations to attack.

      If you're dealing with someone like the US government and NSA, be paranoid as they have more than enough resources to find out secrets using ahem, alternate methods, as long as you're a big enough target. A better approach might simply be to swear off computers entirely.

    18. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Michael+Spencer+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Slight nitpick, then I'll let you get back to your ongoing highly-moderated discussion. :-)

      If processing power roughly doubles every 18 months, every extra bit of encryption doubles the work required, but only adds 18 months to the time needed. Adding 12 bits might make the computation require 4096x more work, but would add 18 years to the computation time, not (previous time in years x 4096) years.

      Remember that security cares about risk. Security researchers should consider that the next 20 years will see similarly exponential increases in processing power as the last 20 years. Sure, it's not guaranteed to happen: things could taper off soon. But I don't think it's wise to assume it WILL DEFINITELY taper off. I think it's reasonable to assume the same growth rate, or assume one even faster, and plan from there.

      So adding bits increases time-to-crack linearly, if we assume the next 20 years will be similar to the last 20 years.

      Time to crack 4096-bit = the lowest of:
      Time to crack 10-bit + 6129 years
      or time to crack 11 bit + 6127.5 years
      or time to crack 12 bit + 6125 years
      or time to crack 13 bit + 6123.5 years
      etc.
      Thousands's of years, yes. Sextillions of years . . . are you sure?

      I have no comment about the correctness or incorrectness of anything else you're talking about. This comment only cares about time-to-crack estimates.

      Carry on. :-)

    19. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      You're just not using the right tools :
      fred@ix ~ $ whois terrorist.org
      NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information [ ... ]
       
      Domain ID:D121723-LROR
      Domain Name:TERRORIST.ORG
      Created On:26-Jun-1996 04:00:00 UTC
        [... ]
      fred@ix ~ $
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    20. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by BrynM · · Score: 1
      What's next? How about a third reich like system where they allocate an entire demographic region, send all the arabs there and figure out who is who.
      The US already did that to Japanese-Americans during WWII. Ironically, it was done at the same time the Reich was doing it (sans genocide though). Doing it again isn't much of a stretch.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    21. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by rm999 · · Score: 1

      "So let's ponder me getting a number that was used by a terrorist. Should I be labeled guilty by association."

      I'm not even sure if this is worth replying to because it seems so obvious, but I'll say it: the government is not stupid. They know you just got the new number...

      The NSA is the largest employer of mathemeticians in the country and they get some of the brightest ones. They will not write stupid algorithms that will waste time chasing someone who is obviously not a threat.

    22. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by rm999 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's true. It's not about how much information they had, it's about how they were analyzing it. The NSA has always had the most raw computing power to monitor foreigners, they just didn't have access to domestic information (eg. 9/11). That is what this is changing. As I understand it, the NSA has more than enough computing power to analyze all the phone calls in the country.

    23. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      But no mechanism to do anything about it. There were several people in several intelligence agencies that knew something was coming. They notified people who notified people and somehow nothing managed to happen. That is the problem. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't have access to domestic info. If they find something internationally they should pass the info on to a domestic agency like the FBI or the local police depending on severity. That is why they exist is it not?

    24. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by samkass · · Score: 1

      You didn't read my reply very carefully. It's not just about collecting the information. It's about building and segmenting the web of interconnects. If they took even *one* of the terrorists into custody, they could probably uncover the other 18 through a mechanism like this. Without it, they'd only have 1/18th of the problem solved. You say "there was already enough data to determine that the event was going to happen"... while that may be true (I doubt enough was in the hands of law enforcement), knowing something will happen and knowing exactly who's involved are completely different things.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    25. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No one is sitting there recording 2 billion phone calls a day."

      Oh really?

      As a former intelligence service member, I can tell you that this can be done given a large enough datacenter and resources. Since you're getting the stream digitally, you can split it and store directly to large scale backup devices on-line.

      Lets look at this scenario: you're monitoring source 1 and his contacts, but only later do you discover through one of the contacts that there is a source 2. Not retaining the full data stream means you cannot backtrack and see what source 2 did all this time. An operation failing because of a technical issue like this is likely to be more awkward to explain to your customer (government) than throwing a few hundred million dollars on a data center, though the sheer volume of data in this case would probably force you to delete anything older than a few months.

    26. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Fortyseven · · Score: 1

      Niiiice. ;)

    27. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it so happens I agree with you, I nevertheless do find some irony in that you used the word stupid in a the same message that you misspelled the phrase "non sequitur" (which is, I might add, two words and not one).

    28. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Vancorps · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Except that they indeed found one who could have led them to 18 others. Why wasn't the information passed on to law enforement? Didn't the FAA notice the planes weren't exactly on course? Knowing that info wouldn't that have given them enough evidence to order an evacuation? Shooting the planes down would have probably been very unlikely for reasons I imagine are obvious.

      Seems to me like there is already too much fragmentation going on. They need to be able to pass info to the people that can make a difference. As long as they can't do that then they've no business collecting even more information which will be mishandled even further.

      I know what you saying, break the info apart but what if a seedy character had my phone number before me? Does that mean I'm under surveillance and instantly labeled a terrorist? This doesn't work because the information obtained is ineffective. If they suspect someone in particular then they can tap that individual line. If they suspect 20 people surrounding it are involved then yes indeed they can be tapped as well, that is reasonable and probable cause. Doing this to every phone is pointless and a huge waste of resources which could be devoted to analyzing the data they already have and then notifying the people that will make a difference. If you're going to change the law for the NSA make it so they can legally pass the info on to the FBI and local law enforcement. That is all that is required and far less invasive.
    29. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by bunions · · Score: 1

      I don't believe it. The NSA is already having trouble mining the callgraph data. Terabytes a day of recorded calls is more trouble than it's worth. Most of the time simply knowing who talked to who and when it enough.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    30. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      You're right, of course!

      Those who proclaim that NSA is using the data to track terrorists are the same ones who believed Nixon when he said he used highly focused "system analysis" to arrive at his paranoid and hyper-suspicious, emotional attacks on his political enemies using the FBI, NSA and CIA. This is just soooo deja vu, but at a much more highly dangerous level.

      How they manipulate us --- first after the stories on NSA's illegal spying hit the media, that immigration bill --- then those Spanish-language radio stations organize those two nation-wide protest marches --- just research who owns those Spanish-language radio stations --- it will lead you to the Blackstone Group and the Carlyle Group --- why am I not surprised.

    31. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Khammurabi · · Score: 1
      This is exactly what the NSA is using the records for. No one is sitting there recording 2 billion phone calls a day. They're building a large call graph and using it as an investigative aid.
      If this is all the administration is doing, polls have shown that most Americans are okay with this type of call pattern tracking. If true, the administration has little or no reason to to hide this fact. (The terrorists will still use phones and e-mail for communication.) However, the administration is fighting any attempt of oversight, which implies it IS doing something that is questionable.

      When the populace of a country has no privacy, but its ruler maintains absolute privacy, the ruler is a despot, and we are his subjects. However, the president is OUR EMPLOYEE, and therefore should be held accountable for his actions. No manager would permit his or her employee to spit back "None of your business" when they ask him or her what they were up to. Nor should we.
    32. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that 128-bit number refers to the symmetric key size. SSL usually uses 1024-bit certificates to establish this symmetric key. So the comparison is between 1024-bit and 4096-bit asymmetric keys, but still quite a job. However, if the NSA had determined all primes (which are often used in asymmetric key systems) representable with 4096-bit numbers, then you are screwed, SSL or PGP.

    33. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by rm999 · · Score: 1

      "But no mechanism to do anything about it."

      They'll pass any important information they get to someone else, as you said.

      "As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't have access to domestic info"

      Yes, what they are doing is illegal; most people on here don't question that.

    34. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, whenever there are records collected so large, alternate uses are found for them. Collecting so much information is a gold mine for tracking individuals, regardless of whether or not that was the origional intention. Imagine an leader who disapproved of abortion who tracked calls to abortion clinics, and labeled those people as potential political threats. Or a military worker who wanted to eliminate all "sinners". It's possible using this sort of information, and that's scary. The quickest solution is for normal people to start encrypting their web browsing using software like TOR to encrypt their web browsing and public key encryption to encrypt their emails. I found an article about creating a free anonymizing usb key using open source software. Check it out and spread the word to actively protest the infringements on our rights.

    35. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by burningion · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent up! We need to get encryption out there to everyone. Programs like tor help.

    36. Re:Here's why _you_ should dismiss the case... by bunions · · Score: 1

      (a) 'most,' the last time I checked was like 60%. If I was president and I did something 40% of the people disapproved of, I'd be wanting to sweep it under the rug too.

      (b) building the callgraph -is- questionable, all by itself, whether or not 60% of our nation is made up of idiots that can't feel the water they're sitting in starting to boil.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  5. room 101 by robinesque · · Score: 2, Funny

    The secret room is room 101.
    Duh.

    1. Re:room 101 by nolife · · Score: 1

      No, to get into the secret room, you need the bridge to get the magic dot, once you have the magic dot, a barrier will disappear allowing you access to the room!

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    2. Re:room 101 by Bryan_W · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought it was 404

  6. text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have the original PDF or the one with the blacked stuff available to read?

    1. Re:text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It might be PI-Redact.pdf from this page?

      http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/#legal

    2. Re:text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such document, but here:
      http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ATTreplyonminut eorder.pdf

      is a PDF such as described.

    3. Re:text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      as usual, it's on cryptome.

      http://cryptome.org/klein-decl.htm

    4. Re:text by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      No, there is a PI-redact document (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/PI-Redact.pdf) , but I think you're right in terms of which one the article refers to.

    5. Re:text by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      That's not it. Is it? I'm pretty sure they're referring to this PDF, since that's a 25 page redacted document.

      I'm confused. I can't seem to figure out what is what. The Klein thing on Cryptome wasn't submitted by ATT, like TFA claims. What gives?

  7. Proactive protection... by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, if there really are...
    benign reasons why AT&T would allegedly have a secret room at its downtown San Francisco switching center
    then why did...
    the Bush administration [submit] a 29-page brief that elaborates on its argument that the case should be tossed out of court because of the "state secrets" privilege?

    Seems like if they didn't do anything illegal they have nothing to fear.

    1. Re:Proactive protection... by packetmon · · Score: 1

      What do you define as illegal? Seems like the illegal things this administration does gets overlooked and lost in a myriad of "National Security" crapaganda. Do you think that its legal for the NSA to wiretap the entire Internet? Under who's juridstiction? If I were a lawyer I would sue the government for breaching my client confidentiality. No one specified that my line as an attorney should be tapped. So why should the NSA under this administration be allowed a free ride to break the law? You should take the time to read about the statistical improbability of the NSA actually narrowing down and finding terrorists with their wiretapping actions.

    2. Re:Proactive protection... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      GP was just using their own argument against them.

    3. Re:Proactive protection... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, the Bush Administration submitted it because they are indirectly involved. While EFF is going after AT&T it has to do with the government and therefore they have an opinion.

      It may not have to do with anything specifically in this case, but it may be more of a general "the government can do what it wants because we're at war so you shouldn't be looking at anything that involves a government agency on the front-lines of the war against terror" type of thing.

    4. Re:Proactive protection... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Better question...

      Why hide an argument that something is benign unless you don't want people to have a chance to refute it?

      That's like claiming state security before secretly claiming you had nothing to do with something.

      If you had nothing to do with it, you should be able to say that publically.

    5. Re:Proactive protection... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "If you had nothing to do with it, you should be able to say that publically."

      Well, when it comes to national security, that's not entirely true.

      It's sort of like the old nuclear weapons on ships thing. "We will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board this vessel." If they didn't have any, why not just say so? Because, we want to keep our enemies guessing.

      I'm not saying it's a good reason...

    6. Re:Proactive protection... by Ossifer · · Score: 1
      It's sort of like the old nuclear weapons on ships thing. "We will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board this vessel." If they didn't have any, why not just say so? Because, we want to keep our enemies guessing.
      Well, yes, but in reality it's because if one could find out which ships didn't have nuclear arms, one then immediately knows which ships do...

      The funny thing about the government's actions in this case is that it seems that they are essentially admitting to breaking the law by claiming state secrecy.
    7. Re:Proactive protection... by deblau · · Score: 1

      Because lawyers will argue 69 different reasons why something should (or shouldn't) be done. If they can get the case thrown out under the state secrets privilege, the issue of whether the room exists or not will never see the (legal) light of day. It would be a big dodge for the government.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    8. Re:Proactive protection... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      of course there are times when they would confess to having "nuclear weapon components" on board (but not say that they just happen to have 110% of actual weapons on board and guys that have the tab A in Slot B >tab C in slot D... instructions memorized)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    9. Re:Proactive protection... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Seems like if they didn't do anything illegal they have nothing to fear.

      Likely true. But that still doesn't mean that you are either entitled to know what they were up to, or that you will find out.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:Proactive protection... by stewart_smith · · Score: 1

      The fact of all this finally coming to light is refreshing; However, the phone industry has been in bed with the Feds since the days of Al Capone. There are no state secrets! Put a buttset on two terminals and see what you hear...

    11. Re:Proactive protection... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, isn't that the reasoning the government, and related agencies use with regard to cryptography? That if you have nothing to illegal hide, you wouldn't?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    12. Re:Proactive protection... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      Not really, no. The US government has generally been OK with encryption, more or less. Historically they just wouldn't allow you to export strong encryption to most places, or any at all to a few special nations (North Korea, Cuba, etc.). That is by no means necessarily the case in other countries, including European ones.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:Proactive protection... by Raenex · · Score: 2, Informative
      The US government has generally been OK with encryption, more or less.

      No, they really don't like it. They really want to listen in. The Clipper Chip was proposed by the Clinton administration.

    14. Re:Proactive protection... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The Clipper Chip was proposed by the Clinton administration.

      The key word being proposed, not mandated.

      They really want to listen in.

      Not quite. It is more accurate to say that some parts of the government (law enforcement, intelligence) want to be able to obtain the means to listen, if necessary, for law enforcement or national security reasons. My recollect was that it was not a unanimous view in government.

      At the end of the day, though, that proposal never went anywhere, which is the key issue. Other means of encryption existed and were used then and now.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. hidden backroom? by Keruo · · Score: 1

    Didn't we see one of these backrooms in takedown?
    They went to see some fat guy who traced the calls for feds from there.

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
  9. What's amazing is by thealsir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That the US as a whole doesn't seem to give a shit about this. Look at the results of polls. Ranges from general aloofness to "it's good for National Security(TM)." Look at T's stock price. Huh, normally a company with such an incriminating lawsuit wielded against it would take at least somewhat of a hit in price (though the markets ARE very wierd right now). It seems that the techie crowd are the very small minority of folks who actually care that their phone calls were tracked without ANY precedent in the first place. We're not talking warrantless tracking, we're talking completely random warrantless tracking. What was the saying in Rome? Feed the masses and give them entertainment, and you can do anything to them.

    --
    Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    1. Re:What's amazing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panem et circenses.

      "Bread and circuses"

    2. Re:What's amazing is by slashes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I totally agree to what you're saying. Their stock has NOT taken too much of a hit admist all of this controversy. But I do think there are other people, not just us 'techies' who actually do care what's happening. What I find funny about all this is how AT&T still denies that the room had anything to do with the NSA program. I mean, honestly, who in here DOESN'T THINK they were eavesdropping? I think they knew perfectly what was going on, what was happening, and how this was illegal.

    3. Re:What's amazing is by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "That the US as a whole doesn't seem to give a shit about this."

      Well, as others have pointed out, there may be some mitigating factors here, such as people more concerned about privacy being more unwilling to participate in these polls.

      "Look at T's stock price. Huh, normally a company with such an incriminating lawsuit wielded against it would take at least somewhat of a hit in price (though the markets ARE very wierd right now)."

      On the other hand, a company that makes $$$ from the NSA to do the agency's dirty work seems like a good investment in this day and age. Think of it as profiteering.

      "We're not talking warrantless tracking, we're talking completely random warrantless tracking."

      With any luck, Congress may reevaluate civil liberties now that Bill Jefferson's office has been raided.

      (Of course, knowing Congress, the only change we'll see is the introduction of the words "except us" in new laws)

    4. Re:What's amazing is by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yup, they will include the 'us' in the exception clause, right alongside the MPAA, RIAA, and Microsoft.

    5. Re:What's amazing is by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The population as a whole can not conceptialize the power of correlated data. They see shopping "club cards" and see that they get a better price. They watch "24", and see that the bad guys are caught cause their license plates are pulled up in 5 seconds (all bad guys drive their own vehicles, of course!).. they see stoplight cams taking pictures of license plates as making the streets safer..

      We geeks deal with data every day. We understand that patterns can be drawn from it, often very incorrect patterns based off of incomplete data.

      The non-geeks cannot comprehend that in the next very few short years, they will get a knock on the door, and the police will say, On Thursday, at 8am, you shopped at the grocery store on 10th street, bought a bunch of bannana's and some milk. 20 minutes later, you were seen driving buy at 3MPH over the speed-limit on this street, which is only 5 minutes from the grocery store. You had better account for exactly what you did during that 15 minutes, because we are placing you under arrest for a crime that was commited in that area at that time. We also see that you have called your nephew 3 times in the last month, who was served 6 months (several years ago) in jail for an assault. And you give money to the ACLU, which makes our job harder.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    6. Re:What's amazing is by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think the stock price is really that good an indicator. Yes, it may be illegal but I suspect the fallout would be almost purely political. Either Bush and the NSA will get it dismissed, or they can blame them. In any case I don't think it'll reflect very badly on them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:What's amazing is by rbochan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That the US as a whole doesn't seem to give a shit about this....

      The US government must think that Americans are lazy, brainless sheep who will shut out even the most obvious evidence that criminals are running the country. I mean seriously, only the most idiotic... Oh look! American Idol is on!

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    8. Re:What's amazing is by wpegden · · Score: 1

      As people have pointed out on Slashdot before, looking to telephone polls to gauge peoples fears about privacy is ludicrous (since those most concerned may very well be those least likely to participate in the poll).

    9. Re:What's amazing is by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Interesting
      --
      What?
    10. Re:What's amazing is by Terminal+Saint · · Score: 1

      Back when I was woking my high-school job as a grocery clerk, they even told us that the card wasn't for customers to get a good deal, it's for the company to track buying habits. Creeped me out, man.

      --
      It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
    11. Re:What's amazing is by agent_no.82 · · Score: 1

      Does it really take that much effort to have a good name?
      Despite what some think, beauty and functionality are not mutually exclusive objectives.

    12. Re:What's amazing is by yabos · · Score: 1

      Pretty damn rediculous isn't it?

    13. Re:What's amazing is by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      How true. I gave a speech about this at a public speaking class. I got a good grade, but the audience seemed unmoved by the information.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    14. Re:What's amazing is by drwho · · Score: 1

      So supermarket discount cards are for shopper tracking and demographics. So what? Isn't that obvious? Maybe you should ask why paper coupons exist (the anonymous type) exist in the first place. That's a little less obvious. I can tell you if you care.

      But back to the cards: if you are so concerned with your privacy, just get multiple cards and keep them guessing.

      What I'd like to know if ATMs already record the serial numbers of the bills they dispense, and make these available to Investigating Authorities. Because if they don't currently, you know they eventually will.

    15. Re:What's amazing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with that is people don't actually have to do anything for that vote. Just pick up a phone or Internet or however it worked (sorry, never seen the show).

      On the other hand, to vote for a president you have to take time to go to the voting station and wait in line. Certainly nothing to it but it's inconvient compared to voting by phone or interwebs.

    16. Re:What's amazing is by esper · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should ask why paper coupons exist (the anonymous type) exist in the first place. That's a little less obvious. I can tell you if you care.

      By all means... Do tell.

    17. Re:What's amazing is by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      "Give Me Convenience, or Give Me Death"

      --
      What?
    18. Re:What's amazing is by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      US pop show victor attracts more votes than any president
      that sounds like a good plot for a movie!

      on a related note, i've noticed that there are quite a few politically charged (for lack of a better description) movies coming down the pipe, is the MPAA actually doing the public a service? or is apple just highlighting them better?

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    19. Re:What's amazing is by plalonde2 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it to verify the efficacity of the advertising?

    20. Re:What's amazing is by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      ... nam qui dabat olim
      imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
      continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat:
      panem et circenses.

      Juvenal, Satire 10.78-81. "For the people, who once assigned authority, political offices, legions, everything, now represses itself, and desires and gets troubled over just two businesses: bread and circuses."

  10. Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called the 'delete' key. Why go through the sham of putting black lines through everything in an electronic document?? If you want to preserve the layout how about asterisks or similar?

    1. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Screw the formatting. Deleting is the only complete answer. And even then you're better off taking an image of the edited file depending on the format.

      Asterisks or similar have the problem of being characters. If you replace every redacted character with an asterisk, information can still be gleaned from context and word length. Of course, the same is true of black lines when using a fixed width font. I imagine non-fixed-width fonts are also vulnerable, since word lengths and average character length can be known.

    2. Re:Here's an idea by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I imagine non-fixed-width fonts are also vulnerable, since word lengths and average character length can be known.

      Fixed-width fonts would actually be more secure. With a variable-width font, you can glean another few bits of information about words based on the length of the black line. At least, if the black lines only cover up the words and not entire lines.

      OTOH, with a fixed width font, you know that N pixels = M characters while with a variable width font, you're not going to be sure.

      (sigh) I know enough to be a danger to myself, methinks...

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  11. When will they learn? by cdavies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I swear, I've heard about so many instances of this exact same attack, I stop feeling sorry for the idiots who are surely going to get fired for this.

    If it's not people who don't really understand how postscript works, it's people who don't realise those 4MB word files contain more than just the visible part of the document....

    1. Re:When will they learn? by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ever think that somebody was "stupid" on purpose in order to leak the information without going to jail? After all, assuming that they haven't had training in computer security and the specific software in question (after all, who is actually trained to create PDFs?), a prosecutor have a hard time proving that they should have known better.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:When will they learn? by Wildkat · · Score: 1

      No, no, here is the idiocy - the NSA has a VERY good guide to doing the right!

      Its call - "Redacting with Confidence: How to Safely Publish Sanitized Reports Converted From Word to PDF "

      http://www.nsa.gov/notices/notic00004.cfm?Address= /snac/vtechrep/I333-TR-015R-2005.PDF

      You would think that if you are going to give a lame excuse for why you are doing bad things for a governement agency you would at least read the very handy guide on how to file a legal brief with all the naughty bits covered up.

      Idiots!!!

    3. Re:When will they learn? by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      I used to produce a moderate number of documents to be released as PDF for general public consumption and discovered a long time ago that you can do things like hide text behind objects (like a picture or a box) and then later on in acrobat be able to move the object to reveal the text. I was always very tempted to put easter eggs in the pdfs, but never did.

  12. Dumb and dumber.... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every educated person should now know that black bars in PDF do not remove what is under them. There were several high-profile cases in the press by now.

    In addition, do these people not employ any security experts that tell them how to do this right? Making clean (text) documents is really easy: Export to ASCII, remove text, import as ASCII. But obviously this low-tech approach needs a qualified high wizard of computing today.

    Not that I mind that these amoral scum got bitten.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That destroys the formatting and makes your work look very unprofessional. There are better ways to redact information from a PDF.

      The biggest problem is that it's a paradigm shift for these people and they're not ready for it. The "Black Bars" always worked with regular documents, but when they were forced (against their will) to switch to electronic documents many people tried to find ways to make all of their old procedures work with the new format. This always happens when you force people to switch to technologies they're not comfortable with, and throughout history has been an enormous source of lost productivity and security leaks. The kind of people who are making these mistakes aren't the kind of people who read Slashdot, they're the ones that are thankful when they can finally go home every night and get away from those godforsaken computers for the rest of the day.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that I mind that these amoral scum got bitten.

      But did they? I mean, if I wanted to sow disinformation, hiding something with the intent it might be found is a great way to it.

      (/me double checks tinfoil hat... and peeks outside for black helicopters)

    3. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Better yet, fax it to yourself. Still, Adobe or whomever is responsible for generating these PDFs really should try to export the maximally-flat expurgated version including only what's necessary to draw what the user sees.

    4. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, I'm willing to bet that the black bars were put in there using Word, then the whole thing was exported to PDF. Same net effect, though. As someone who blinds electronic manuscripts for peer review, I'm amazed by how many people don't get this simple concept. The method that I've found that works best is just replacing said text with a series of XXXXs. If you have any leeway with page-flow, insert random numbers of XXXXXXs in there. If you don't, then hope that others can't use the length of the XXXXXXXXXs to figure out how long the word(s) that are blinded used to be.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    5. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As someone who blinds electronic manuscripts for peer review, I'm amazed by how many people don't get this simple concept. The method that I've found that works best is just replacing said text with a series of XXXXs.

      Well, if somebody knowledgeable does this, it works. I have reviewed postscript papers that where anonymized by the authors. Unfortunately they forgot that some PS generation processes list the user name at the beginning of the file....

      Also the my original comment about ASCII-Expoert and re-import: Of course you have to do reformatting in some way. But you get a very good level of security and security is never really cheap. Nobody that belives it is hsoul even be let near sensitive documents.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem is that it's a paradigm shift for these people and they're not ready for it.

      I completely agree. What really anoys me is that these people think they understand what their machine does. They do not. They need expert advice. The experts need to be competent and payed well. If that is too expensive, stay the hell with non-computerized technology!

      Also why has everyting to be typeset? What is wrong with ASCII?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Good points. The reason I only do the XXXXX part is because the review system we use does PDF conversions that remove all the extraneous metadata and hidden crap. There's a whole lot of identifiable information that gets tucked away in various property tags and whatnot that people don't know about. You basically need to go through your files with strings or a hex editor to make sure none of it's been left behind.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    8. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      To secure an electronic document that you wish to publish while still concealing some information is a three-step process. One, you print the document to a virtual printer that renders each page as a high resolution monochrome png (lossless compression) document. Two, you go into your image editing program and open up each png file, putting black bars over all the text that you wish to secure, and then three, you import those images as pages for a PDF, performing OCR on them as nesssary to reduce the size of the final file. The newly created PDF is the document you release.

    9. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You basically need to go through your files with strings or a hex editor to make sure none of it's been left behind.

      The few times I did this for one of my own papers, I looked at the PostScript file with a text editor (the header and footer are really the only critical place in dvips generated PostScript) and additionally did a ''grep'' for my name. Worked well, but is definitely experts-only,

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      That destroys the formatting and makes your work look very unprofessional. There are better ways to redact information from a PDF.

      Since PDF is basically Postscript, when something adds bars to the PDF, couldn't any thus-obscured text glyphs be simply removed from the document? This shouldn't be rocket science.

    11. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 1
      ...you import those images as pages for a PDF, performing OCR on them as nesssary...

      That could work but I don't think anyone would trust OCR to create a legal document.

      ...Then again they were "drawing" black lines on a piece of electronic "paper";-(

    12. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      I've seen software which does this -- Except it's a TIFF file, and the plain text is captured directly from the print file rather than OCR.

      Also, FWIW, the story is incorrect -- one can copy-paste the text using Windows Adobe Reader 7.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    13. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Why would they use black bars, when all that needs to be done is to color the font white? Won't that save ink also?

      --
      What?
    14. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by rbannon · · Score: 1
      This is from the actual pdf
      <pdf:Producer>Acrobat Distiller 7.0.5 (Windows)</pdf:Producer>
      so this guys were using Windows and probably aren't too concerned about security.
    15. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen. I don't have time for your computer speak techno jargon. just black out the text and get the fuck out of here. I have a staffer to, um, chat with.

    16. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling you're the same type of person that made this mistake.

    17. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by yabos · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that they're so dumb. You get to find out what's really happening. Too bad they didn't do the same thing with the WTC and Pentagon investigations.

    18. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And if someone prints the PDF on non-white paper?

    19. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The real approach should be:

      1. Print Document

      2. Cut out redacted portions with an X-acto knife

      3. Scan Document

      4. Distribute Redacted document

      5. Profit??? (sorry, had to throw that one in)


      But seriously, there has been studies done of documents redacted with the standard black ink pen, which were still reconstructed using letter frequency analysis and any extra features embedded in the greyscale and/or non-obscured top area.

    20. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Well anything that flattens and rasterizes the document will do that -- you could open the PDF in Photoshop and save it out as a JPEG or something if you wanted; the downside of doing this is that it probably increases the size quite a bit, and also breaks accessibility features. You can't use a screenreader or Braille terminal with a rasterized document.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    21. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by mr100percent · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You mean like Operation Mincemeat?

    22. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >There are better ways to redact information from a PDF.

      They should have asked the NSA.

    23. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Why would they use black bars, when all that needs to be done is to color the font white? Won't that save ink also?


      Christ, no! It would only increase the amount of white ink the printer has to slather on to every page....

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    24. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I just learned what YHBT means :) Tell you what, select some white text, and...

      --
      What?
    25. Re:Dumb and dumber.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paid.

      'Payed' is the past tense of 'pay'. Paid is a verb.

  13. Why are they suing AT&T? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You think they would sue the ones actually responsible for making this all happen, you know, the fucking government?

      Suing AT&T really misses the point...

    1. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by packetmon · · Score: 1

      Did you get this comment Agent Smith? Thanks to our taps this anonymous coward here is currently being investigated for his acts of terrorism and allegiance to Osama.

    2. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in a stroke of brillance there was a law passed that makes it illegal to sue the government without the government's permission....
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Suing AT&T really misses the point...

      No, it tells companies that the government isn't the only one they should fear.

    4. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sue both.

      Suing AT&T is not missing the point at all. AT&T did something highly invasive and illegal just because a bunch of government stooges came and told them so. Companies should not do this. The only way to convince them not to do this is to ensure that there are consequences for such actions. Since the government isn't going to punish them, being that they're the ones who instigated it in the first place, it's up to private citizens to do it. Suing them for breaking the law is a great way to do that.

      This whole NSA wiretapping thing never would have happened in the first place if the telecoms companies hadn't just rolled over at the first sign of pressure.

    5. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Because AT&T is playing along when they don't have to. I believe at least one major phone company (QWest?) was reported as not playing along.

    6. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Is this fear? More like friendly cooperation combined with disdain for customers' rights. And how many people do you know that are willing to do anything about it? Even writing a letter to their Congressfolk?

    7. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      AT&T is the one prohibited by law from providing this information; the government isn't prohibited from receiving it, though they are prohibited from seizing it.

      So they are suing the people that broke the law.

      Plus, of course, sovereign immunity makes it difficult to sue the government unless it voluntarily decides to let you.

    8. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You think they would sue the ones actually responsible for making this all happen, you know, the fucking government?

      The problem with sticking it to the government is that in a democracy the people are the government.

      The best you can hope for is sticking it to the leaders that the people chose as their representatives but, since the people chose the leaders in the first place, any reasons for sticking it to the leaders are reasons for sticking it to the people and most people don't want to stick it to themselves.

    9. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I thought they tried suing the government and the NSA denied the DOJ clearance...

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    10. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by deblau · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You think they would sue the ones actually responsible for making this all happen, you know, the fucking government?

      Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990) (internal quotes omitted). A necessary corollary of this rule is that when Congress attaches conditions to legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, those conditions must be strictly observed, and exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied. Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983).

      Point me to a statute that explicitly recognizes the right of a private citizen to bring suit against the NSA for this kind of thing, and then we'll continue the discussion. (The Fourth Amendment might be used, in conjunction with Article III section 2 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 or 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), but there's a tricky issue of standing to be resolved. Without at least some evidence of the NSA spying on the plaintiff individually, there's no way to support a claim of actual injury, and the case will be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.)

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    11. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has - Margaret Mead

    12. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by popsicle67 · · Score: 1

      That stroke of luck is needed unfortunately. I know that it seems like treason right now to defend the government,but this law protects the politicos you like as well as the ones you hate. Given the nature of this country with it's myriad colorful old fogies,it is not impossible to imagine that one person could bring Washington to a screeching halt over any dumbass thing that tickled his sphincter by filing a frivolous lawsuit. It is a pain for the person who has an honest gripe but you wouldn't ever be able to bring suit the other way either because as sure as god made little green apples 10 million other suits would be filed ahead of yours and your taxes would go to more lawyers than it already does which is, in itself, an unforgivable crime(lawsuit anyone).

    13. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      mmmm...sticky

    14. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by WoodieR · · Score: 1
      it also tells companies that the should OBEY the LAW, NOT the government flavour / boogieman of the day ...

      it also tells companies that THEY should force the government to OBEY the LAW ...

      There's plenty of room for ALL of God's creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    15. Re:Why are they suing AT&T? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but like any law, there is an obvious loophole that TLA's can exploit.
      It's a no-win for the people.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  14. What's amazing is...I trust polls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That the US as a whole doesn't seem to give a shit about this. Look at the results of polls."

    Well according to the poll I just did. Nine out of ten geeks are sexy and will get married and have kids.

  15. This "leak" is intentional. by jthill · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a multinational corporation with its global reputation on the line, not some band of trolls that can't abide sunlight. They have very, very smart people running their response. Their bland, everything's-fine, "we're just innocent li'l good boys doing what we should" arguments aren't even remotely plausible candidates for secret filings. It's a dodge, meant to convince the people who want to trust them and divert the ones who don't.

    --
    As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    1. Re:This "leak" is intentional. by Exatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because they're smart doesn't mean that they can't make stupid mistakes.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
  16. You see? by cno3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is what happens when you outsource your redacting responsibilities to overseas contractors.

  17. Amazingly Sloppy by flooey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Considering they're apparently working with the NSA, it's amazing they were this sloppy. If you've ever seen an NSA release of a classified document that's been scrubbed, it's always very clear that it's either a document that someone has physically overwritten with a black marker and then scanned (such as here), or a document that was edited on a computer, printed out, and then scanned back in again (such as here). They do that precisely so there's no traces of old information left in there. I'm surprised they didn't lend their trick to AT&T.

    1. Re:Amazingly Sloppy by IHateChoosingAName · · Score: 1

      It's funny how, in the first example, the words "Top Secret" are thinly blacked out on each page. What exactly does blacking out those words accomplish?

    2. Re:Amazingly Sloppy by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The NSA has really strong document rules. Any kind of photographic film, electronic device, so much as a furbie isn't allowed in their work areas, they have multiple sets of telephones, to keep the secret and very secret stuff separate. along with lie detector tests, and background investigations of their employees (not just pulling a credit/criminal records, they send people to talk to employees 1st grade teachers...) very little could get through.

    3. Re:Amazingly Sloppy by flooey · · Score: 1

      It's funny how, in the first example, the words "Top Secret" are thinly blacked out on each page. What exactly does blacking out those words accomplish?

      I think that's to indicate that the document you're viewing is not classified, but came from a source that was Top Secret originally. If it still said "Top Secret" on the top of every page, it might be confused for a classified document.

    4. Re:Amazingly Sloppy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit! The NSA is listening to the phone calls of UFOs!

    5. Re:Amazingly Sloppy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how, in the first example, the words "Top Secret" are thinly blacked out on each page. What exactly does blacking out those words accomplish?

      It declassifies them. That's why spies still carry pencils.

    6. Re:Amazingly Sloppy by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Considering they're apparently working with the NSA, it's amazing they were this sloppy.

      Hmmm... could this be taken the other way? Their sloppiness/ineptitude being "proof" (or at least consistent with) the belief that they have no connection to the NSA?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  18. Remember when Patriots died for Freedom? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But now we just let them spy on us, arrest us without warrants, ship American citizens off to foreign prisons to be tortured for years without any formal charges, and turn the Constitution into confetti for their personal profit.

    That said, the NSA has never been that legal, from a constitutional view, but noone is willing to challenge their existance, most likely due to fear or threat of tag teams of government lawsuits, IRS audits, and other tricks used by those who wish America to live in Fear.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Remember when Patriots died for Freedom? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I often wonder what it would take to wake up the revolutionary in the American people that once seemed strong in them. Especially when I see people so suprised that people in the middle east are willing to die to protect their beleifs.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:Remember when Patriots died for Freedom? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That said, the NSA has never been that legal, from a constitutional view, but noone is willing to challenge their existance...

      You're confused about both the NSA and the Constitution. The NSA's primary purpose is signals intelligence of foreign governments and their agents (some of whom may be US citizens). Foreign governments aren't entitled to the rights of a US citizen. Spying on foreign spies is fine too, even if they are US citizens.

      But now we just let them spy on us, arrest us without warrants, ship American citizens off to foreign prisons to be tortured for years without any formal charges, and turn the Constitution into confetti for their personal profit.

      No, we let them spy on the likes of Al Qaeda members and their supporters.

      The Constitution is quite whole, you just apparently don't really understand it. Or maybe you simply don't approve of the powers of the various branches of government, especially the Executive branch in time of war.

      ...and other tricks used by those who wish America to live in Fear.

      I think it is quite revealing that you seem to believe that it is the government that wants to repress Americans and cause them to live in fear, and not the ones actually plotting to kill 4,000,000 Americans, namely Al Qaeda. Fear the sheriff, not the rattlesnake, eh?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Remember when Patriots died for Freedom? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      You're confused about both the NSA and the Constitution. The NSA's primary purpose is signals intelligence of foreign governments and their agents (some of whom may be US citizens). Foreign governments aren't entitled to the rights of a US citizen. Spying on foreign spies is fine too, even if they are US citizens.

      Thanks, that's the Administration's interpretation of the Constitution, but is not the sole interpretation, and you're confusing the actions of an agency (NSA) that may be extralegal (translation: illegal under the Constitution, even if passed by Congress) in regards to US citizens and the actions of foreign governments. Noone has seriously suggested that al-Qaeda is an arm of a foreign government, in fact most CIA actions and their detention in GITMO are presupposed on their not being agents of a foreign government.

      You're entitled to disagree, but Memorial Day is there so you can remember what people like me put our lives on the line - your ability to say such things, even if we disagree with them.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  19. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's very insightful. I'm jealous I didn't think of it.

  20. I've received redacted government docs before... by LiftOp · · Score: 1
    ...done poorly. Black marker over lines, missing letters. Black marker over then photocopied, resulting copy could be held to the light to read the redacted material.

    Some people are simply idiots, sloppy, or rushed.

  21. Heavy Underlining by DrNoNo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anybody thinks that this stuff was ruled over? It's very heavy underlining I tell you. Ok, it is so heavy, it covered the text, but it did its task and got it onto /.

  22. Plausible bullshit. by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not the first time 'redacted' pdf's when 'uncovered' have led to increase the defensive position of the group who supplied the 'poorly' protected document.

    I recall a redacted PDF from italy that 'supported' the US gov'ts claims at the time..

    it's too damn convenient, if the redacted portion had been damming.. I'm sure the doc would have been on paper, with the blocked portions cut out... not blacked over with a sharpie.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:Plausible bullshit. by orzetto · · Score: 1
      I recall a redacted PDF from italy that 'supported' the US gov'ts claims at the time..

      You are recalling this report, that the US army released as a PDF and was "cracked" within minutes by multiple sources. It disclosed the names of US soldiers who shot at an Italian car because (in short) they had placed a blocking position incompetently (in this map, you can see they placed the BP at the end of the highway exit lane, not where it starts), that the reason for their mission was John Negroponte's visit, and that US troops used VOIP to communicate (cheap bastards), which had failed to work that evening. The report also disclosed bunches of troop movements, and AFAIK (I did read it) its supposed-to-be-undisclosed part did not support any particular US claims.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    2. Re:Plausible bullshit. by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      The usual method is to print the document out, mark out the redacted portions with a magic marker, then photocopy the result. The marked-up printout is then destroyed, to prevent its accidental distribution.

  23. Pedantic by MarkByers · · Score: 1

    The method that I've found that works best is just replacing said text with a series of XXXXs.

    You're method will not work in the general case.

    Specifically, your algorithm performs poorly if you want to remove all occurences of the phrase 'XXX' in a document.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Pedantic by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      That's when you switch to Plan Y.

  24. Sovereign Immunity by damian+cosmas · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Sovereign Immunity by mycall · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Senate -- if enough momentum occurs, new laws are formed or amendments ratified.

  25. It's not this admin, liberal JFK spied on ML King by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can just imagine what's in those documents... "here's a picture of your granddaughter next to one of our agents at school... here's a picture of your toothbrush - I wonder what's on it... Here's a picture of your wife sitting at home masturbating thinking she was alone (heh)... Here's a picture of you and your secretary." Sorry, but with this administration, it's hard not to assume some underhanded strong-armin^^^^^ persuasion.

    Excuse me, *this* administration. You lost quite a bit of credibility on that one. *Any* administration can do such things. Read up on President John F Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy's surveilance of Martin Luther King.

  26. 100 bucks says by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    this news won't make any sort of news outside the internet.... what a sad state of affairs...

  27. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're posting this from the White House lawn, right? How's the WiFi signal over there?

  28. I wish more whistleblowers would come forward by mycall · · Score: 1

    Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their neighbors.

    1. Re:I wish more whistleblowers would come forward by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      But the US attorney general has seemingly promised to prosecute whistle blowers. That's a big first fear to overcome, esp. if you have a family.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:I wish more whistleblowers would come forward by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There are procedures for genuine whistle blowers to follow, like going to Inspector Generals or Congress. That isn't what has been happening. What has been happening is politically motivated leaks of classified information in an attempt to damage the administration.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:I wish more whistleblowers would come forward by shawngarringer · · Score: 1
      Yeah, thanks for backing up your claim that these leaks are politically motivated by a republican rag magazine... hell, every page of their website has a banner ad to an article that disputes that the polar ice caps have even begun to melt...


      Would you like to offer evidence from the National Inquirer that George Bush's daughter is dating space aliens next?

    4. Re:I wish more whistleblowers would come forward by Orodreth · · Score: 1

      Man, I don't think any of the mods understood your witty joke. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. :-)

    5. Re:I wish more whistleblowers would come forward by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thanks for backing up your claim that these leaks are politically motivated ...

      Here you go, maybe you will find this a little less distracting?

      And, a little more that is helpful.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:I wish more whistleblowers would come forward by shawngarringer · · Score: 1

      One is a "friend of Isreal" (yay! Isreal is the source of most tension in the Middle East, wipe it off the map and the world would be much better) and the other has a link right on it to "Right Wing Clothes". While we're at it, find me a link to FOX news, I think that'd be a balanced report also.

  29. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by waferhead · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm sorry you feel so bad about it, but most US citizens are simply secure in the knowledge that Dubya cannot run again.

    The NSA should be disbanded/absorbed into the CIA for going along with this crap.
    They're smart folks, and should know better.
    Dumbass---er..Dubya (and all his Gestapo) belong in prison IMHO, not that I ever see that happening, but what goes `round comes `round as is said.

    _________________
    I used to be a Republican, but as the definition of "Republican" has drifted, I realize I'm now effectively somewhere between a Libertarian and an Anarchist.

  30. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by jsx92 · · Score: 1

    White House lawn, huh? You think someone in there gives a rat's ass?

  31. Bleed and Soak Us by AgentPhunk · · Score: 1

    Here in Boston area there's a grocery store chain called "Bread & Circus", which carries "whole foods" and other natural, organic, yuppie bunny-hugger type foods. However, the price is so high on these goods that two bags of groceries can routinely run you around $100, hence the moniker "Bleed and Soak Us". Bleed and Soak Us seems apt for what the Bush Administration is doing to us, no?

    1. Re:Bleed and Soak Us by thealsir · · Score: 1

      Bleed and Soak us, bleed us of money and soak us in an ocean of debt? LOL, that's been going on since the 80s during the Reagan years. Same thing happened to the US in the 60s and 70s, took till the 80s for growth to return.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
  32. Media blackout by SIGBUS · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yup. Consider the way the media handled the Colbert performance, for instance.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    1. Re:Media blackout by magicchex · · Score: 1

      After watching the Bush comedic skit preceding Colbert's, I noticed something interesting. Bush's skit covered many of the same things that Colbert's speech did while being (in a way) more entertaining. I wonder if the Bush team had a copy of the Colbert speech to reference when writing their own. This allowed them to steal his thunder and do it fairly well. I think if Colbert spoke first and then Bush, Colbert would have gotten much more attention.

      Just my $.02

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
  33. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem is that, short of a revolution or coup, there's nothing we would be able to accomplish. Gone are the days when government was for the people... now they're for themselves and the businesses that line their pockets. You may say we live in a democracy and can simply voice our opinions with our votes. Try again. Elections are decided by an audience way too suceptible to infomercials and mudslinging ad campaigns paid for by the companies with the most money... the candidate/company with the most money, has the most influence and thus the easiest task of brainwashing the mindless American public. In other words, we're Rome waiting to crumble.

  34. Same reason RIAA sues kids by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    You think they would sue the ones actually responsible for making this all happen, you know, the fucking government? Suing AT&T really misses the point...

    Same reason RIAA sues kids, you sue the involved party with the fewer resources to defend themselves, hope for precedent to further future suits, etc. Of course when the weaker party is AT&T "fewer resources" is obviously relative.

  35. Probably a ballon by Curl+E · · Score: 1

    They missed one. At the bottom of page 37 is says "TOP SECRET UMBRA".

    --
    Backups are for wimps. Real men post their data in comments and have slashdot mirror it
  36. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by frankthechicken · · Score: 1

    White House lawn, huh? You think someone in there gives a rat's ass?

    Not for three years anyway, they are only scared by people, and those people must be en mass. Though even given enough (witness the anti-war demonstrations in the UK prior to the Iraq war), the government can still proceed as it wants if there is enough time before the next demonstration of democracy, i.e an election.

    Unfortunately, the general public are fairly timid, and unless the situation has affected them personally, in a direct manner, and even if they oppose the situation, they will not get off their arses and attempt to do something about it.

    Passions need to be ignited within an individual before they will be proactive, and in a comfortable world, passion is something that is hard to come by, especially when it is far easier to be slightly bemused and stand on the sidelines.

  37. Stupid EFF by jhylkema · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Knowing their history, we will probably have it soon enshrined in our caselaw that the President may spy on any American anytime he wants for any reason or no reason.

  38. Do you think White House calls are on record by expro · · Score: 1

    Additionally he is infinitely more likely to make contact with enemies of the state than the average person.

    Do you really think that White House calls are in the record?

  39. Man, you know the situation is bad when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...some American citizens are seriously discussing the political asylum option. I know of an ex-USAF and NASA test pilot who was making enquiries, as well as a serving US Army Apache attack helicopter pilot who was trying to find a place to live once he'd told his bosses that he was not going back to the Iraq oil robbery^^^^^war. Both were once ultra-patriotic guys, who I used to have huge (but friendly) arguments with about America's past conduct. Now they are looking to permanently move to a Southern Hemisphere nation.

    I never thought I'd see the day when ordinary American citizens were so terrified with and disgusted by their own government that they are preparing to flee. They would prefer to stay and fight to get back a free America, but they know that the odds are against them, since most of Big Fat Stupid America(TM) inevitably doesn't give a shit about the things that are happening to them.

  40. This is off topic, but I don't care by GweeDo · · Score: 1

    Since when does /. run flash ads with freaking audio? I just got a Table Tennis ad (from Rockstar) and it has music and freaking ball hitting sounds. I haven't installed any ad-blocking crap into Firefox yet (since I understand the need for ads to generate revenue), but that is just too far. If I see one more, ad blocking here I come.

    1. Re:This is off topic, but I don't care by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1
      since I understand the need for ads to generate revenue

      Look at it this way: ads generate revenue, but statistically, hardly anyone will install ad-blockers, so if you do, it has no significant effect. So you can avoid the ads, and not feel guilty (not sure why you'd feel guilty, but anyway).

      It's kind of like how only a small proportion of people respond to spam, but it's statistically enough to ensure it's worth the spammer's time and resources to do it, so the rest of us have to put up with spam because of a few fucking idiots.

      Only, er, different.

    2. Re:This is off topic, but I don't care by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Generating revenue is the site's problem, not yours. If it still bothers you, subscribe.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  41. I cut from Acrobat Reader 7.0 to gVim and read it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Windows no less. No security here. This is wide open.

  42. What the lawyers hid from you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    For those who cannot read the redacted pdf brief online, here are the parts in bold italics that the lawyers did not want you to read.
    Plaintiffs contend that the Klein Declaration is itself sufficient to make out a prima facie case on their statutory claims. But even if one focused only on the two claims as to which plaintiffs make any argument, the Court could not determine the validity of those claims without first evaluating information covered by the government's state secrets assertion. Plaintiffs' suggestion that they need only show that certain communications have been split off into a "secret room" strips multiple elements from the statutes on which their claims are based and glosses over numerous issues that would have to be explored if their claims were ever to be fully litigated.

    AT&T cannot confirm or deny any of the facts on which plaintiffs' complaint is based. But it is certain that the Klein Declaration and its associated exhibits are insufficient to demonstrate any illegal conduct by AT&T. Plaintiffs offer no evidence regarding what, if anything, actually happens to any data once it allegedly enters the alleged "secret room." Plaintiffs' purported expert provides merely "suggestive" configurations between unknown equipment in an AT&T facility. See Declaration of J. Scott Marcus In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 32) 74. His strongest opinion, explicitly based "in terms of media claims" is conditioned entirely on a supposition: "if the government is in fact in communication with this infrastructure." Id. 39. Plaintiff's purported expert, of course, has no knowledge whether this is true or not.

    Even accepting their allegations as true, plaintiffs' declarations fail to establish their claims. Key factual issues that bear directly on the viability of their legal claims and AT&T's defenses are subject to the Government's state secrets assertion and are unavailable. Without either confirming or denying the plaintiffs' assertions, AT&T notes that the facts recited by plaintiffs are entirely consistent with any number of legitimate Internet monitoring systems, such as those used to detect viruses and stop hackers. Although the plaintiffs ominously refer to the equipment as the "Surveillance Configuration," the same physical equipment could be utilized exclusively for other surveillance in full compliance with the terms of FISA - which even the plaintiffs themselves would not contend is unlawful. See id. 40 ("The SG3 Configurations could be used for a number of legitimate purposes."). The mere existence of these so-called configurations, even if plaintiffs' allegations were accurate, would not by itself be prima facie evidence of what - if any - information is intercepted or divulged or by whom. And it certainly is not prima facie evidence of any illegality. Plaintiffs fail to establish even a prima facie case that there has been an "interception" of "contents" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2510(4) & (8), whether there has been "electronic surveillance" within the meaning of 50 U.S.C. 1801(f), and whether particular statutory exemptions do not apply, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2702(c). Certainly nothing compels the inference that the contents of communications of "millions of ordinary Americans," (Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 30) at 11), have been divulged to the government, in contradiction of the government's statement that communications are intercepted only if the government has "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda," or otherwise affiliated with al Qaeda. Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice (Attachment 2) (Dkt. 20).
  43. Re:It's not this admin, liberal JFK spied on ML K by hugzz · · Score: 1

    Right, but not every single administration does. Thus, his statement was appropriate

  44. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by barefootgenius · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Thank you for your reply. I'm still pretty angry about this and after getting moderated as flamebait (probably correctly), I'm going to cancel my Slashdot account in disgust. If I had the money, I would come over and protest myself but the only money I have is currently negative. Instead I have sent a letter to our PM, as follows;

    Dear Prime Minister,
    I have just read about extraordinary rendition on an online forum. This is a practice where the American government sends suspects overseas for interrogation and imprisonment. This practice is seen as a way of circumventing their obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. If cases such as these are presented in an American court they are dismissed by the administration on "State Secrets" grounds.
    In view of this I would like to ask the Prime Minister to;
    *Assure me that we are in no way an accomplice, indirectly or directly, to this practice.
    *Investigate these rumors for evidence.
    *Act upon any evidence obtained.
    I realise that America is the most powerful country in the world currently, but at the same time I don't think any moral person of our country would justify that as grounds for turning a blind eye to torture.
    Yours sincerely, .

    I doubt that will have any effect, but who knows, maybe she has received a thousands more like it. Good luck, I hope things improve for you. If it gets to bad, you will more than likely be welcome at this end of the world. We aren't totally screwed up in N.Z. yet (just a touch). Its a pity, America once epitomized hope for me. I believed in it standing for freedom, rights, humanity. When Neil Armstrong said, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." I believed he meant for mankind. When I visited Los Angeles as a teenager, I liked the people. They were helpful and friendly....just good people. I still believe that most Americans are good people. At some point though, you have to stand for what you believe in or you will lose it. Even if you find it was a lie, it is still better to know.

    Over the past five years my impressions of America have been destroyed by the actions of its government both at home and on the world stage. After reading Slashdot over the past year, there was a brief moment of hope that there were people still willing to lay down their comforts for the ideals expressed in your constitution. It seems now that Slashdot is a place were people say they stand for certain ideals, but the saying of it is enough for them. It is not enough for me.

    Goodbye, good luck. BarefootGenius.
    --
    /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
  45. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by adtifyj · · Score: 1

    > In other words, we're Rome waiting to crumble.

    Nicely put.

    I suspect that most Americans and associated countries dont even contemplate a revolution as a possibility; they are now too comfortable, and have been acclimatised to dissidents being identified before the crime has been committed. As a result, temperate large scale protests are the accepted means of people expressing their power and venting a bit of steam.

    I certainly dont want Rome to crumble as it will bring down everything around it. It was a big wake up call when Australia, where I live, followed USA into the ``war on terror''. Our society and economic market is rapidly becoming so interconnected that all nations need to stand behind each other, or whoever is strongest -- even sovereign states are not free to make their own decisions based on public opinion.

  46. so uh... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    whos colbert? Comedy Central ?

    1. Re:so uh... by magicchex · · Score: 1

      Yessir (if you're not being sarcastic)

      He was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart before starting his own show, the Colbert Report.

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
  47. Actual Contents of Secret Room by Analogy+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the decoded text the following here are the contents of this and other secret rooms:

    • A massive stockpile of red Swingline staplers
    • Jimmy Hoffa (NSA got to the horse ranch first...oh how they'll laugh at the Christmas party)
    • Massive stash of Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft "home movies" from Frisco area bath house during W's coke days
    • Osama and 72 virgins
    • Geraldo Rivera
    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    1. Re:Actual Contents of Secret Room by Starcub · · Score: 1

      Insightful??? ROFL!!!

  48. Recent events starting to make sense by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Call me paranoid, and I'm sure some will jump at the opportunity faster than a "Slashdot First-post"-er, but haven't we noticed a relatively recent trend in communications companies merging? The Bells coming back together in spite of the original, successful and effective purpose for separating them? Internet and wireless companies all converging?

    At first, I believed it was all only the "pro-big-business" leanings of the current administration. Now I'm beginning to believe it's quite a bit more. Consider how much easier it is to implement these plans when there are fewer companies to convince to do your bidding?

    Okay, there's definitely a trace of paranoia, but geez. The past and present peices come together to form some rather coincidental pictures.

    1. Re:Recent events starting to make sense by dalroth5 · · Score: 1
      Well yes; but's it's not really surprising. For your consideration:


      1. Companies, whether public or private, exist _only_ to maximise profits for their owners.


      2. Maximum profits derive from monopolies.


      3. To achieve monopoly, companies first attempt to crush their competitors.


      4. If they cannot, then merging is almost as good.

      --
      "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
    2. Re:Recent events starting to make sense by erroneus · · Score: 1

      It's not surprising that the companies want this to happen, it's that the justice department and the executive branch want this to happen.

  49. Re:It's not this admin, liberal JFK spied on ML Ki by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Excuse me, *this* administration. You lost quite a bit of credibility on that one. *Any* administration can do such things. Read up on President John F Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy's surveilance of Martin Luther King.

    Excuse me, *Kennedy*. You lost quite a bit of credibility on that one. Read up on FISA and specifically what year it was enacted.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  50. Re:It's not this admin, liberal JFK spied on ML Ki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What JFK did or did not is irrelevant because, at the time, wiretapping-at-will was legal. Telephone conversations were not considered private at the time (you know, with manually operated switchboards, crosstalk, reconnections, you could not reasonably expect your conversation to be private. Kinda same way as if you screw your wife in the park, then sue the city for 'violating your privacy': there is no expectation of privacy at the setting.

    NOW, since 1978, due to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/ warrantless spying on Americans became illegal.

    To be fair, Clinton had tried same shit, but was bitchslapped back into behaving... because warrantless spying was illegal since 1978! ... that was back when we had REAL conservatives.

    With Bush, REAL conservatives turned into kookservatives, the general public is happy with 9/11 excuse...

    Q: Why did we invade Iraq, W?
    A: terrorism

    Q: why do you torture people?
    A: 9/11

    Q: why does the gas cost $4?
    A; bin Laden

    Q: why is the sky blue?
    A: terrorism?

    But hell, people like you know better, people like you know the Truth, people like you have all the answers, even before you hear the question.

    Megadildoes, asshole! Good luck to you with all that.

  51. WRONG by popeguilty · · Score: 1

    A country's laws are binding only within its own borders.

    1. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Regrettably (and I AM trully sorry for both of us), you are are NOT correct. PLEASE read on.

      U.S. judges ruled that persons can be tried for breaking the U.S. laws, no matter in which locale said laws were broken.

      I cannot hotlink, but click below and look up FederalJudge Whyte's order, which basically states that it is not unconstitutional to prosecute for crimes done outside the jurisdiction of the state

      Go to http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/
      Look up judge's order under: U.S District Court Judge Ronald Whyte's Order denying Elcomsoft's Motion to Dismiss on Constitutional Grounds. (May 8, 2002)

      Yeah, sure, Sklyarov was aquitted by a jury, but the earlier decision stands that stipulates that everybody in the World is subject to the U.S. (Federal) laws.

    2. Re:WRONG by popeguilty · · Score: 1

      So if two Chinese guys, who've never left China, get into a fight, and one dies, can murder charges be brought in the US?

    3. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, murder charges, no. Such a murder has to be comitted withing the Federal jurisdiction...

      DMC(P)A charges could be brough though. If the same two Chinese men (in China) code a ripper that "might" be used on an a protected American DVD, they are comitting a Federal crime. Same if you hack Federal U.S. computers from Ghana...

      Yeah, scary, huh? That's the whole point, just how unbelievably scary such a law can be... I beg of you, read up EFF's stuff on DMCA, there's just so much shit hidden in there.

    4. Re:WRONG by popeguilty · · Score: 1

      The thing, and the reason that you're full of bullshit, is that you'd have to enforce these grandiose gestures. One judge inanely declaring that American copyright law somehow upends the very notion of national sovereignity does not actually cause American copyright law to upend the very notion of national sovereignity.

      We're not the whole world, and our laws only apply within our country, just like every other nation on earth. Grow up.

    5. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our laws only apply within our country
      Tell that to Saddam, or them terrorists in Guantanamo

      I guess you were never introduced to the fact that Might Makes Right?

      What do they teach you kids these days? Or were you too snobby to pay attention in International Politics 110 or whatever you took for humanities requirement? I know I didn't like it either, but at least I took in something...

      I dimly recall that history shows there are two kinds of countries: the kind that have the power to act as they please (U.S., the 70's Soviet Union, Germany in the early 1940's, Britain in the 19th century, etc. etc.), and the kind that is all pussy, and can only talk 'human rights', 'international laws', and other shit.

      How about you actually read some up of that EFF link, now?

      No? well, I just figure you are the kind of a person that knows shit, talks shit, and reads shit.

      Say, would you think a married couple in Texas had the right to buy a sex therapy device (i.e. a dildo)? Well, that would actually be a crime. Boy, you DO know shit.

    6. Re:WRONG by popeguilty · · Score: 1

      hahahaha, I should've spotted you for a troll several minutes ago. Bravo, good sir.

    7. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, was I that obvious that you spotted me so soon? I though we had it going there for awhile, but now I give up!

      At least we had some fun, right?

      My parting farewell (but do not click if you hate weed though) http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16977. JPG
      Btw, [kosmos] means 'space' in Greek; hence the Cosmonauts

    8. Re:WRONG by popeguilty · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's one of the best trolls I've been pulled in by in a long time. Be proud.

    9. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Such a murder has to be comitted withing the Federal jurisdiction.
      ... or by a U.S. citizen.
      There have been cases of U.S. citizens being prosecuted for sex crimes because they went to Thailand (or, Cambodia, or some othe S.E. Asian country) and had sex with children.
      (I guess if they had just killed the kids, rather than having sex with them, it would have been O.K. to the U.S. federal government.)
    10. Re:WRONG by drwho · · Score: 1

      The US isn't the only country which thinks it can extend its laws around the world: France does (stoppign auctions for nazi memoribilia), Austria does (prosecution for holocaust denial made in the united states), and Belgium does (war crimes, no matter where committed, can be tried in Belgium). In the end, it's the sheer force of the ability of a country to reach out and grab someone. Might makes right. Renditions.

    11. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should point out that the Netherlands have a law that states that crimes against humanity, genocide, and such comitted anywhere in the world become prosecutable (if the perpetrator's country is unable or unwilling to presecute those).

      Of course, that remains a theory because, in practice the Netherlands have no political muscle to enforce that law. (No might to make it right, so to say).

  52. I think there is something important here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have noticed how carefully worded the denials reported recently in the media have been stated. The denials by these companies have taken the form of, "Contrary to media reports, we (AT&T or Bell South or whomever) have not been handing over any data to XYZ agency."

    These blacked out portions seem to confirm what is actually happening - ACCESS is being handed over, not data.

    XYZ agencies take whatever data they want, once they have access, and the company is doing nothing more affirmative than supplying that access.

    Just a guess, but seems likely given the curious locutions and text hidings.

    1. Re:I think there is something important here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a large telecommunications company (non-US) and I can confirm this is how we cooperate with law-enforcement. In our case we only cooperate if they have a warrant (as far as I know). But the actual data is obtained by law-enforcement by sniffing the traffic we make available to them.

  53. What I don't get is.... by denebian+devil · · Score: 1

    Why they even bothered to redact it. Usually redacting is used when one side has to produce something through discovery, but portions of it are considered privileged or something to that effect. But this is a Memorandum, drafted entirely by AT&T's lawyers. They could put into it or not put into it whatever they wanted. If they didn't want people to see what was under the black bars, why didn't they just *leave it out*?

  54. We're sorry this is AT&Ts Internet now by Il128 · · Score: 1

    After the gubment sells the Internets to AT&T and Verizon you comments won't be allowed... After all it is *their* Intetnet, go get you own if you want to bad mouth our Interwebs masters!

    --
    Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
    1. Re:We're sorry this is AT&Ts Internet now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been AT&T's internet since 1995!

  55. Don't need anything special. by Transcendent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But the obscured text nevertheless can be copied and pasted inside some PDF readers, including Preview under Apple's OS X and the xpdf utility used with X11.

    Also works with the normal Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0 for Windows. No DMCA mumbo-jumbo... whoever did it just had no idea what they were doing.

    1. Re:Don't need anything special. by anagama · · Score: 1

      Also works w/ normal acrobat for linux.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  56. Part of the politcal defense strategy? by abb3w · · Score: 2, Funny
    Every educated person should now know that black bars in PDF do not remove what is under them.

    FTA:

    "In an ironic twist, the NSA published a 13-page paper in January describing how redactions could be done securely."
    Maybe AT&T is trying to show that they're not just a sock puppet of the NSA. Or maybe the NSA is sneaky enough to try and hide that AT&T is merely a sock puppet.

    Damn, I'm snickering so hard that I can't find my tinfoil....

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  57. Re:It's not this admin, liberal JFK spied on ML Ki by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
    Read up on President John F Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy's surveilance of Martin Luther King.

    Excuse me, *Kennedy*. You lost quite a bit of credibility on that one. Read up on FISA and specifically what year it was enacted.

    Remind us again what the F I in FISA stands for, and how the Rev. MLK fits into that?
    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  58. even the Constitution holds otherwise by vague_ascetic · · Score: 1

    Or so Dubya Dim and his Admin would have us believe when rationalising the unconstitutional imprisonement of humans at Guantanamo Bay, but all legitimate authority to govern in America is grounded within the Constitution, and a quick read from the Bill of Rights can be extremely illuminating:

    The 13th Amendment to The US Constitution

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Guantanamo Bay is certainly within the set of places defined as "any place subject to" the US Government's juristiction. Mr. Bush himself changed these humans' designation from POW to "criminal detainee". By his own edict, he admits that he believes they are criminal actors, and yet has callously disregarded clear strictures that compel due proces of law be given, by the very document which is the source of legitimacy for his political office, and which he has now twice solemnly sworn in public to protect and uphold.

    This is American Tyranny.

    Please someone give GW a BJ, so the Republican majority can discover a reason to impeach him.

    Until the state can secure a prosecution which follows due process of law, the accused retains the right to a timely and public trial decided by a jury, in which the defendant possesses the right that no compelled testimony of his will be used; possesses the right to challenge the witnesses and evidence used by the state in their prosecution; retains the right to acquire witnesses and evidence for his defense; and the right to a competent counsel reperesenting him, who is dedicated to his defense. These rights are universal in their bar to the State's power of imprisonment, were completely removed from the State's lawful reach, and placed in the category: "Natural Rights", which are possessed by All Humans. There is No terrorism exemption, and these are Not rights which are only conferred by US citizenship, for to argue that they are is to argue that they are not natural rights, but a gift of a generous state to its citizens.

    Cowards, thieves and partisan hacks equivocate, and pimp out the rights of humans for pocket change. A constitutionally illiterate and acquiescent citizenry quakes in fear contemplating the destruction that twenty maniacs were able to cause, because the person and his administration who were tasked with the duty of our country's defense, were so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, they were fast asleep upon the watchtowers.

    The Dreamtime America is fast fading away.>/p>

    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
    1. Re:even the Constitution holds otherwise by ImTheDarkcyde · · Score: 1

      just to be anal about it, the bill of rights is only the first 10 amendments

    2. Re:even the Constitution holds otherwise by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      Please someone give GW a BJ, so the Republican majority can discover a reason to impeach him.

      It's been done several times, but the ones who saw Cheney on his knees all clawed their eyes out and ran away screaming. The latest one was last seen heading down I-66 towards Chantilly at a good clip when the choppers lost contact due to an incoming flight at Dulles.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  59. but...JeffinK did it first.... by vague_ascetic · · Score: 1

    Once again I hear Contemporary Conservatism's tinny cry of moral equivalence, as it continues its long plunging fall from grace into the fetid pit of situationalism.

    Are you implying that two wrongs make-up a righty's rationalisation for liberty's theft?

    Why did you just skip over the Nixon d ark e vil, when discussing unlawful executive acts of surveilling past? Why did you play the ugly card of moral relevancy by pulling it out from inside of your sleeve?

    You also just hopped over any comparisons of scope and degree of implementation.

    A clear difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when Democrats sodomise you, they honestly believe they're doing it for the higher good, will use a bit of lubrication, and lie the next morning, telling you they still care. Republicans, being stark realists, are not enamored by such silly notions, sodomise you only for their own personal agrandisement, and experience intense pleasure from their wielding of illegitimate force.

    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
    1. Re:but...JeffinK did it first.... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Once again I hear Contemporary Conservatism's tinny cry of moral equivalence, as it continues its long plunging fall from grace into the fetid pit of situationalism. Are you implying that two wrongs make-up a righty's rationalisation for liberty's theft? Why did you just skip over the Nixon d ark e vil, when discussing unlawful executive acts of surveilling past? Why did you play the ugly card of moral relevancy by pulling it out from inside of your sleeve?

      No one is making a moral equivalency point, rather a point that such behavior is not specific to an administration or a party. Nixon would therefore have been a far weaker example being in the same party. An iconic liberal president from the "other" party makes a far stronger example. It seems your political filter is set a little too high, dial it back a little and you might see the world a little clearer.

  60. hold that thought by vague_ascetic · · Score: 1

    please don't take being anal to the extreme,
    and wipe your ass with the Bill of rights.

    "Oh my God!
    The dead have risen and they're voting Republican!"

    --Bart Simpson

    - - - -

    "Well,...the point is we need to make sure
    that President Bush is treated
    just as well as President Clinton."

    Sen Mitch McConnell (R-Ky, and Elaine Chao boytoy)
    CNN CROSSFIRE - Aired March 7, 2002 - 19:30 ET

    - - - -

    "Ooh!
    Hiding behind your goons, eh, Bush?
    Well you are a wimp!"

    --Homer Simpson
    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
  61. Bullshit statistic by a_greer2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just for the record, that stat is bogus, you can vote 5 times per phone line, most people have two phone lines, the only way you can vote 10 times for president is to move to Chicago and die...

    1. Re:Bullshit statistic by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...the only way you can vote 10 times for president is to move to Chicago and die...

      Heh, tell that to Diebold. And the rule in Chicago is to vote early and vote often.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Bullshit statistic by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the stat is just fine. Note that they just state "number of votes", and leave it to the reader to assume (incorrectly) that one vote equals one person.

  62. Re:Extraordinary rendition? by SQL+Error · · Score: 1
    Y'know, I really don't think the US government is sending prisoners to New Zealand for questioning.

    Unless they capture a bunch of paranoid sheepophobes or something...

    What connection do you have with Al Qaeda?

    I tell you nothing, son of a monkey and a pig!

    Bring in the sheep!

    BAAAA!

    ...

    Okay, and Osama's MSN Messenger ID? Good, good.

  63. can be read into adobe acrobat reader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    How : just change the coloring of the document in the accessibility futures ( custom colors)
    It is a very dumb way to hide something , they just applied some formatting and did not delete the text.

  64. Re: BarefootGenius by dalroth5 · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Oh dear. Another person who formerly swooned over the American Dream has now grasped the American Reality (Show). It's a pity s/he doesn't yet seem to have grasped that what the US overlords can do, any overlord can do including the NZ overlords and--what with our 'special relationship' and all--my own.


    Yes of course there are many decent people in the US, just as there are in NZ, here and everywhere else. But the rest of the world doesn't experience those people, we experience US culture, which is a loathsome creation encouraging humans to place their own personal greed, self-indulgence and basest desires before everything and everyone else. It's really no surprise that the US government exemplifies the culture of which it is a product.


    The sooner the USA falls apart from its own internal divisions and power struggles, the better off the world will be.


    Go right ahead, mod me to hell. I really couldn't care less. :)

    --
    "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
  65. NSA itself isn't really the problem. by Polarism · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the whole, the concept of the agency is great, vital to the nation.

    The problems come in when required legal processes are ignored by the powers that be.

    I feel ashamed to have worked under that agency for a couple of years. What is going on here is against the very mantra they preach to you regarding the performance of your duties. Violating the laws against collection on US Citizens used to be about on the same level as screwing a horse. Now it seems to be quite acceptable, at least by the upper echelon of management.

    --
    All your base are belong to Google.
  66. question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are hedge funds in the money world something akind to
    tier 1 providers in the communication industry?

  67. *Exactly* as evil as Nazis. by mikelieman · · Score: 0, Troll

    When the FIRST person was denied due process, tied to a chair and beaten to death in the "War on Terror", we ( The USA ) became exactly as evil as the Nazis.

    The ONLY differences are (so far) the methods and bodycount.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    1. Re:*Exactly* as evil as Nazis. by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Extremely well put, good person.

      One keeps hearing about some war we Americans are fighting --- I believe they are referring to the INVASION of Iraq, and the subsequent OCCUPATION of Iraq, and now the rebellion there is taking place. Seems perfectly understandable to this American combat veteran.....

      Yes, Virginia, 9/11/01 really did take place --- just not in the exact manner they would have you believe (v=gt).

      [CODE Air Hammer Alert......CODE Air Hammer Alert...Shut down Congress]

  68. Evidence that lawyers don't read by ayelvington · · Score: 1

    Given all the press about improper redactions using PDF (DoD, et al), you would think that their legal staff would have gotten a bit smart on this. I work next to a Freedom Of Information Act office and we have been savvy on this for some time.

    Bottom line, don't trust attorneys with anything more than the words, and leave electonic publication to professionals. (Could this be proof that smart tech writers should be payed more than dumb lawyers?)

  69. Re:Amazingly Sloppy Redacting Top Secret by ayelvington · · Score: 1

    You redact "Top Secret" after you redact the document because it's no long Top Secret and doesn't require the same handling procedures. Simple administrative issue and nothing stupid about it.

  70. couriered documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "classified documents that Walker could review in private--documents that, in the eyes of the government, will convince him to dismiss the lawsuit."

    Ya, I can imagine what *those* would say....

        "dear judge. Cheney wants a skeet partner. How is your aim?"

  71. Re:Stupid Register Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah those guys at the Register are the real champions of freedom. From thier high perch in the UK they always swoop down to defend Americans liberty.

  72. Right..."Insightful* by guygee · · Score: 1

    1) The only "guesswork" involved in the cited article is that potential terrorists comprise only a very small proportion of the total population of the United States, a perfectly reasonable assumption. The rest follows from Bayes Theorem, and a wide range of assumed probability of detection values used for illustration of their point.

    2)If there are other factors in identifying potential terrorists, then is should be easy to actually obey the lay and obtain a WARRANT.

    After all, the real issue is a blatent and treasonously illegal disregard of Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which requires that all searches and seizures require a warrant.

    *By "Insightful", I mean bending your torso to the degree that you can peer into your own asshole.

    1. Re:Right..."Insightful* by bunions · · Score: 1
      I could have sworn I replied to this earlier. Probably the NSA deleting my posts -_^

      1) The only "guesswork" involved in the cited article is that potential terrorists comprise only a very small proportion of the total population of the United States, a perfectly reasonable assumption. The rest follows from Bayes Theorem, and a wide range of assumed probability of detection values used for illustration of their point.
      But that's the thing. The only hard number that makes any of it interesting is a complete unknown. Nobody outside (and perhaps inside) the NSA has any idea how effective it is. The article just throws some numbers around and says "could be this, could be that, neither are real great." You could state that without dragging in the machinery of Bayesian analysis, which just as much certainty. The author is hiding behind meaningless numbers.

      And, of course, none of it matters. The calltracing is simply one tool of many. It's like saying "Hammers are worthless in construction because no matter how good the hammer is, you still can't build a house with it." It's completely disingenuous.

      2)If there are other factors in identifying potential terrorists, then is should be easy to actually obey the lay and obtain a WARRANT.
      Sure. Don't get me wrong. What's happening is, in my mind, the single biggest threat to America since ... I dunno, since ever. It's unconcionable and completely wrong. I just decline to deal in psudoscience mumbojumbo to show how the NSA is evil. They don't need any help on that front.
      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  73. TIA, if appropriate by smchris · · Score: 1

    On the off chance that a knowledgeable admin asssitant "just did what I was told", good for you. You'll never be able to say so. ;)

  74. Need a second opinion. by guygee · · Score: 1

    So where in the cited article is there something so unreasonable as to be labeled as "mere guesswork"?

  75. Re:Amazingly Sloppy Redacting Top Secret by IHateChoosingAName · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the info! I didn't know that.

  76. Uhh... Anyone try Notepad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming that the PDF I downloaded is the same as all the others, you only need the "hacker tool" called Notepad to view the hidden passages...

    (Sorry Linux users, you may not have any tools this powerful in your "hacking arsenal") LOL

    1. Re:Uhh... Anyone try Notepad? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I'll assume that emacs has a built in PDF viewer.

  77. Re:It's not this admin, liberal JFK spied on ML Ki by evilviper · · Score: 1
    Remind us again what the F I in FISA stands for, and how the Rev. MLK fits into that?

    The title of the law doesn't dictate the body of the law.

    You clearly didn't even READ the PAGE YOU LINKED, because it does begin to cover the issue:

    5. Can FISA be used for ordinary criminal investigation?

    Yes, but with qualifications.

    [...]
    12. So FISA doesn't treat aliens and U.S. citizens equally?

    [...]
    14. Can the FBI use FISA surveillance to get evidence for criminal prosecution?

    [...]
    "Congress recognized that in many cases the concerns of government with respect for foreign intelligence will overlap with those with respect to law enforcement."


    etc. etc.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  78. Re:It's not this admin, liberal JFK spied on ML Ki by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    What JFK did or did not is irrelevant because, at the time, wiretapping-at-will was legal.

    No, much of what is being discussed on slashdot is the morality of such behaviors not merely their legailty. We see many complaints of what is currently legal and should not be due to morality. The Kennedy example of iconic liberal president spying on an iconic civil right leader makes a powerful example of my point that such behaviors are not specific to any administration or party. When a court decides that current surveilance is legal will you drop all complaints?

  79. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    When Americans were torturing innocent people in secret European prisons, who broke the story? It sure as fuck wasn't the Europeans, they only started whining when they got caught.

    Americans have a strong sense of right and wrong. The idea that the American government is spying on innocent American citizens rightfully strikes many people as wrong. I, for one, would not be surprised if AT&T and/or NSA employees leaked this on purpose. If so, then that makes them true patriots.

    --
    [o]_O
  80. Thanks for the clarification... by guygee · · Score: 1

    and please forgive my snide remark at the end. I misunderstood your position as being in support of the NSA's illegal domestic spying. That being said, I still liked the article. I am sure whatever the actual numbers of the NSA's program for probability of detection and false alarm rate for finding terrorists (or whatever it is they are searching for) are highly classified, so all we can do is make reasonable guesses. The author's point was that, almost certainly, the number of false alarms overwhelms the usefulness of any system when the number of targets is a very small proportion of the total population. I guess that is obvious to anyone with even an elementary understanding of statistics, but it is NOT obvious to the general public (the intended audience). As for the other tools, collection of other records such as police records, credit card information, bank records, credit ratings, medical records, voter registration, public library records, internet surfing habits...I highly doubt the effort of collecting all of this information for ALL American citizens can be economically or tactically justified if the real target is some tiny proportion of the population (terrorists). The author's point is that this program is ripe for abuse, and is likely designed for abusive surveillance of some much larger class of "targets". Again, this point should be obvious for anyone with an elementary understanding of the mathematics. If you are looking for 500 terrorists wouldn't you want to decrease the search space to, say, 50,000 or less, rather than increase the search space to 300 million! Sheesh, whatever happened to "old-fashioned" detective work and HUMINT operations?

  81. Great article on TAKEDOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an excellent discussion regarding this here:

    CNN - Entertainment

  82. Stupid mistake by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    The AT&T lawyers behind this are idiots and should be fired. There's aperfectly good solution for redaction of PDFs, Redax, and it's widely advertised and discussed in computer publications intended for legal staff. Moreover, this Redax stuff actually works. Since U.S. federal courts now require (or at least strongly encourage) electronic filing in PDF, any lawyer who plans to litigate in the federal court system needs to know about it.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell