Slashdot Mirror
NSA To Datamine Social Networking Sites
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has discovered that the NSA is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in Internet technology -- specifically the forthcoming 'semantic web' championed by the Web standards organisation W3C -- to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals."
.. 1984. George was right, just off by 22 years.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
You know, as much as I'd like to get all worked up about this issue and fire off another foamy-mouthed diatribe about the pervasiveness of government surveillance, Big Brother, etc., etc., I'm having difficulty justifying it. After all, this information is being posted out there, specifically for others to view. If you put a sign in your front yard declaring how much you hate the government, you shouldn't act too surprised when the government reads it.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If that can help reduce the false positives, I am all for it.
It's about time they do it. It should help decrease real, potential threats like school shootings and child molesters.
How many times have you heard myspace on the news in a negative way? (except for "on the money", where they talk about how much it's worth) I don't mind it (NSA doing the datamining), being that you voluntarily post your information.
I have no issue with data analysis of personal information available on the web (assuming it got there legally).
:).
But this does absolutely nothing for national security - which is the namesake of the agency. If a hate site goes up and government starts watching it to see if they're promoting violence, then fine. But creating profiles of everyone online is pointless. I'm sure they already have systems that scour the web and raise red flags. But putting my name and profile into a database at the NSA does nothing to aid security (I promise
Developers: We can use your help.
So, all I have to do is pretend to be someone else and go create accounts and blogs all over the place as the person I am spoofing and the NSA would add all the bogus information I create to my targets permanent record.
or am I missing something?
They've sworn up and down how they won't create a central database, but this sort of datamining is exactly what they have in mind...
Add in RFID chipped drivers licenses (not to mention the new passports which DO use RFID), and you have the making of a complete "We know who you are, who you hang out with, and where you were last night" totalitarian tracking system.
This is why many of us are moving to New Hampshire, joining the http://freestateproject.org/, and working against these things. We nearly stopped New Hampshire from participating in REALID (the Republican Senators are selling out the state for a mere $3 million...) and we're not done yet.
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
... Than corps doing basically the same thing? We encourage people to make public details about themselves, what do they expect? People allow "non evil" companies like Google to mine their personal data for the profit of Google, why is anyone shocked that the govt would be interested in the same information?
I think there needs to be an intelligence meter along the lines of one of those rollercoaster "you must be this tall to get on the ride" signs for democratic participation. Anyone who seriously believes that this sort of thing exists to fight terrorism rather than monitor the public for potential signs of rebellious behavior or personalities that might one day become political rebels would fall well below the level of participating. I don't know how they could make it more obvious that their goal is social control, not bonafide anti-terrorist.
Disagree? When was the last time that you saw a terrorist on a social network like MySpace, posting hints about their desire to terrorize others? What are the odds that they would even join, since terrorism is more difficult the more exposed you are on "the grid?"
Yes, since people voluntarily place their information on these networks, that attenuates the indignation at this government data collection a bit. BUT, what about information that's put up there involuntarily? Ex: I have a facebook account (sorry), but at the least I wanted to keep a picture myself off it. But soon after, Facebook added the feature to tag pictures with the names of the people in it, and given enough data sets, an algorithm to identify myself in newer pictures! Pictures of myself popped up, appropriately tagged, shortly thereafter. I could de-tag myself on every picture, and ask each of my friends to stop, but such palliative measures are futile on the Internet...once the data's out, it's out!
I'll tell you a different kind of a "in soviet russia" story, and it's not a joke. I'll tell you what kept those people in line under most totalitarian regimes. Yes, the short story is "the secret police", but that's only a very superficial view of the problem.
The communist block's secret police didn't always have the indiscriminate brutality of Stalin's black cars and summary executions. It eventually evolved into something more "subtle": the widespread idea that somewhere they have a dossier of what you've said and who you've associated with. That even if you don't land in the Gulag (but then again, you might land there anyway) for going drinking again with comrade Piotr who speaks against the government, there'll be a page in your dossier for ever flagging you as sharing Piotr's subversive views. And it someday might bite you in the ass. E.g., maybe some day you won't get a promotion, or the party's approval to go abroad (on business or holyday), or whatever, just because somewhere there's a page in your dossier saying you're a subversive element and associate with traitors.
Now they didn't have the computers or manpower to actually do that on anywhere near the scale NSA is doing it, so the probability was really low, but the chilling effect was thorough anyway. People didn't want to take risks, so they tended to shut up.
But the effect was more perverse than that. Anyone who openly spoke against the government was seen as a potential agent provocateur, trying to bait you into saying something that'll come back to haunt you later. It's the most perverse thing you can do to prevent organized resistance: make sure that people don't trust each other. The guy shouting against the government might be paid by the government, or may be someone who has a petty grudge against you and tries to get you to say something you might regret.
Basically, the the most effective threats don't have to be explicit, but vague and implicit. People don't have to know that the government will swiftly come and send them to Guantanamo for speaking against it. The most effective threat is to just have everyone know that you know everything they did and everyone they associated with, that it's for ever attached to their file somewhere, and they don't know how or when you'll use it. Maybe you'll go for direct retaliation, or maybe their son won't be able to get a government scholarship/job/whatever because of what they said, or whatever. That unknown can pretty chilling while costing very little to maintain. (A lot less than trying to execute everyone who disaggrees, and creates less martyrs.)
And all this mining phone calls and social sites (a lot do have personal information, e.g., dating sites) has the potential to create a chilling effect of epic proportions. Is John speaking out against the new fascist government? Well, then better make sure you're not on his friends list or calling him every week. You don't want to have _that_ on your file, now do you? If you're an employer, better get rid of him on your own, because otherwise, you know, that relationship goes on your file too. Plus, you know they'll make a connection every time he calls you to take a sick day, or you call him to ask why the server isn't up. Better not risk losing a fat government contract just because you're associating with and employing undesirables.
Does that have to be accurate and filtered clean of character assassination bullshit? No, it's probably better if it isn't. Might get some people thinking they already have plenty of bogus or inaccurate stuff on their file anyway, so all the more reason not to add real stuff to it too. Better keep low and try not to trip their radar, than have to explain which stuff is bogus and which isn't
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Do you think that a deliberate attempt to obstruct the NSA's ability to "Protect America from Terrorism" (tm) isn't illegal?
In fact, you probably already broke the law just for posting an article counseling how to obstruct the NSA datamining program.
Someone is here on a visa or is an illegal alien? They should certainly be tracked. Legal citizens? Recognize that they have inalienable essential liberties which are guaranteed by the Constitution, and using the War Powers Act to try to justify your actions is NOT legal, and is certainly not ethical. In fact, encroaching our Constitutionally-protected rights when you have taken an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution actually amounts to treason.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence
hrmm.. where in that do you read that only LEGAL CITIZENS are created equal? Or that only legal citizens are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights.
The legal premise of the nation is that rigts were endowed upon ALL by the Creator. Unless immigrants have a different creator, then they too have those fundamental rights. The Constitution does not guarantee your rights. the Constitution merely acknowledges in writing that certain of them exist and acts as a contract between the Federal Government and the States and the People that the rights will not be infringed. Contracts can be violated, and they often are. The only thing which guarantees the right may be enjoyed is the positive ACTIONS of people in defence of those rights.
Most people are far too scared to act against government action even when it breeches the contract. This would seem to be according to plan.
"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is
much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with." - THE PRINCE, Nicolo Machiavelli - 1505
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. " - Darth Vader, "Star Wars: Episode V"
Those in power can trample whatever rights they please, and if it can frighten people out of resisting then it has successfully achieved its aim.
If the people are scared of their own government, then they are already oppressed.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
As scary as this might sound, I see no reason for anyone including the NSA to be banned from using publicly available information. This isn't like demanding phone records that are normally accessable only with a warrant.
That said, I do hope they use a little common sense and realize that profiles and other statements on the internet may be wildly inaccurate. And this is one more occassion to remind users that they should post nothing that they wouldn't want just anyone to see.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
"if the government wanted to find out what you purchased, the probably could by going through your purchase records"
The other thing you neglectged to mention, though, is that the government is only supposed to go through your purchase records after obtaining a court-authorized warrant. They're not supposed to be looking through _everyone's_ purchase records, trying to find suspicious patterns. "Fishing expeditions" have generally been considered by everyone, even the courts, to be violations of reasonable expectations of privacy. The issue isn't necessarily to prevent the government from investigating; it's to prevent it from investigating without reasonable suspicion.
Way to dodge the real issue. The NSA shouldn't be spying on US citizens. The potential for abuse far outweighs the potential to stop terrorism. The Federal Government has a proven history of abusing things like this. Sorry to sound callous, but the rights of hundreds of millions of US citizens not to have their freedoms taken away trump the rights of twenty kids not to get shot up by their classmates.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I know a guy who applied to the NSA. I don't know whether he got in, but I've known him since high school. He was a math major in college, played a lot of D&D, Lord of the Five Rings, Warhammer 40k, and World of Warcraft. For all intents and purposes he was completey apolitical. He thought he was a pagan in high school, but decided to be a nihilist by senior year after reading some Nietzsche. Now I think he's converting to Protestantism for his fiancee's family. He's also really good at DDR.
I don't really think he fits the "sociopathic, mean-spirited, fascist-minded" description you have in mind though. He was friendly, loyal, and generous as long as I knew him.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
"That is absolutely wrong. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and anything you do or say in the bank, the convenience store, or any public space or private property open to the public is subject to monitoring and recording."
He didn't say "expectation of privacy", he said "reasonable assumption that one won't be stalked or spied upon." These are very different things. I don't expect to be able to walk around naked in a bank and scratch myself in front of the customer service rep. I DO, however, expect to not be stalked or tracked in any way other than purely random (e.g. I am not the special focus of any official observations). I DO, also, expect to be able to freely and openly exclaim my opinions about the government and political topics, without incurring special 'treatment' by secret organizations of government hitmen.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.