NSA Email Surveillance Pervasive and Ongoing

dkleinsc writes "The NY Times has a piece about work being done by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) and others to curb NSA efforts to read email and Internet traffic. Here's an excerpt: 'Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former NSA analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.'"

Comments

NSA line eater

[davidwr]

Time to bring back the NSA line eater?

--
bomb assassinate washington north korea iraq spy poison

Oh, quit whining

[rbrander]

You got the government you deserve, just like your founders promised. The Executive won't stop this, you know that now - the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in, and he's down with all of the new executive powers. The Congress won't stop this, because you NEGLECTED TO FIRE MOST OF THEM for ignoring such things for years.

Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change. Otherwise, quit the damn whining.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[oneirophrenos]

Why don't share your insight with us - how is an average citizen to "start firing congressmen and senators"? The ability of a common person to influence governmental matters is, as it always has been, very limited.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[Shooter28]

Stop voting for them.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[L4t3r4lu5]

You make a lot of people aware of the issues with that particular congressman, then they all contact their government representative regarding the issues with that congressman, and they in turn bring up the issues in congress. One congressman says "Hey, I heard that Billy Blogs has been doing some nasty stuff with this interception malarky! I don't know exactly what it is, but it sounds like he's been listening in on domestic American citizens' communications!" Another congressman says "Awww hell yeah, I hurd that too!" and pretty soon the guy is out on his ass.

Unless he has Haliburton as a sponsor.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[kenp2002]

Stop voting for them.

That is no more effective then trying to stop drug crime by say "Stop Buying Drugs" or stopping poor education by saying "Stop Failing Tests".

Even if 1/2 the people stopped voting for democrats or republicans those same democrats and republicans would still win, by a larger magin in fact due to fragmentation between Libitarians, Consitutional, Socialist, Communists, Green, and Independent canidates.

The way to stop it is to PARTICIPATE in the political system rather then just voting or not voting which is the last, and minor step in a long political process.

Voting is just crossing the finish line in the marathon of politics. You wouldn't say that someone who drove to the finish line, got out, and crossed the finish line "participated" in the marathon, no more then someone voting participates in an election.

Get into a party, be active in it, and:

"Be the change you demand rather then hoping for change in others."

Re:Oh, quit whining

[daem0n1x]

Maybe if your political system was proportional instead of based in electoral circles, there wouldn't be the duopoly of two parties that alternate in power with no significant difference between them.

By giving no chance to the smaller parties you're automatically excluding any innovation that could shake the political system a bit.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[PeeAitchPee]

the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in

That's the root of the problem -- people think that BHO is "transformational" because he's a great used car salesman and he happens to be black, but in reality, that's all he is -- a slick used car salesmen who's big on charismatic speeches but woefully short on concrete details, who's selling universal healthcare, an end to the war in Iraq, and all of the other things the Democrats have over-promised during the election and under-delivered -- while every day sinking our country deeper in tremendous debt of levels never before conceived. The Republicans have already proven that they're no better, BTW.

The glaringly obvious answer is to vote for third-party candidates. I don't even care who at this point -- practically any new blood would be welcome. Throw these sons-of-bitches the fuck out of DC and our state and local governments -- both Democrats and Republicans -- and lets see some candidates from other parties in power. Quite frankly, short of a brutal dictatorship, it's pretty hard to imagine fucking things up worse than DC is now doing, on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[Gizzmonic]

Even if 1/2 the people stopped voting for democrats or republicans those same democrats and republicans would still win, by a larger magin in fact due to fragmentation between Libertarians, Consitutional, Socialist, Communists, Green, and Independent candidates.

Actually, what happens is that every time the 3rd parties start to gain traction, one of the major parties adopts some of their platform. This has happened throughout the history of the United States and it's a good thing. So those 3rd parties aren't as useless as you'd think.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[anagama]

Ummm ... you're thinking our government still abides by the Constitution and are ignoring the huge powergrab the Executive branch has been engaged in for years. In a few decades, Congress and the Supreme Court will be nothing but a rubber-stamp factory for the president's whims.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[Tanktalus]

It's a dangerous thing to contemplate "fixing" politics. You have to be careful that the fix results in a full net benefit over the current system. And I fully realise that the current system is as corrupt as hades.

For starters, you need to try to imagine what type of people you're going to attract to public service with your change. Is it the people you want to have running the country, or will it further exclude them, leaving public service only for the power hungry?

I ask this of people who oppose politicians (whether municipal, state/provincial, or federal) getting raises. Or tax-free allowances (which, let's face it, merely means they're getting paid more than it looks). If you pay your councillor such a small pittance than only the independently wealthy or the power-hungry will pursue it, how do you expect to attract those who are well-educated and would do a good job? Those people would rather work for the private sector (whether big corps, startups, or entrepreneurially) where they could make double or triple the money, and not have to reapply for their jobs (often at great personal expense, at least for municipal politicians) every few years (every year or so, it seems, for federal politicians in Canada *sigh*). If, and I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, we paid our politicians at a rate that the caliber of leader we wanted would get if they were in the private sector, do we not think we'd get more good candidates "applying" for the job? Sure, we'd get more power-hungry people, too, but we'd at least have SOME decent candidates, possibly. Whining about their pay rate right now, when we also complain about how stupid our representatives are, seems counterproductive to me.

Similarly, what type of people would we get with term limits on house/senate members? We'd get a lot more people who don't know what they're doing, that much is obvious. That would definitely impede activity in government - though if you're of the opinion that this is a good thing, I'm not going to argue with you (not really my topic here anyway). But, beyond that, who would you get? You'd only get people who think that the pay and the benefits (POWER!) are worth giving up your career for that term limit (everyone assumes they'll not only win, but be re-elected as many times as the law allows). Let's say it's 12 years. Would you give up your career for 12 years to "serve" in government? Would the type of smart, wise person who you'd want to represent you in government be willing to give up his/her career for 12 years? Would they want to take the risk of getting back into their old career? What types of careers would be easy to give up for 12 years and re-enter? Is that the type of person you want in government? (I'd think lawyers would be one such career, as might MBA's... other careers, like IT or research or Engineers or Medical Doctors or the such might not be so easy to get back to, especially when recertification is required.) Think about it. Who would you get? Is that an improvement? If it's merely a wash, it's not worth the turmoil to make the change. I suspect it'd be worse than what we have now. Don't get me wrong - on the face, I like the idea of limiting politicians' careers. But I'm not sure that such a limit would improve government, or make the corruption worse.

Re:Oh, quit whining

[donaggie03]

So you spent $750 plus every weekend from June until October. But did you win?

Re:SMIME

[oldspewey]

I will give you $100 if you can provide instructions on implementing this that can be understood by all my friends and family ... and that includes my elderly relatives and my "but this is how it come when I bought the computer" friends.

Re:What about spam?

[Locklin]

That's precisely the problem. Low signal-to-noise ratio implies a high false-positive rate. They are not likely to find any terrorists, but are probably invasively "profiling" plenty of innocent civilians.

Solution: PGP

[headhot]

sure the NSA can probably crack PGP, but if every one used it, the NSA would not have the capacity to crack every message, forcing them to target communication, which is what they should be doing in the first place.

Re:My Dearest NSA,

[dkleinsc]

If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?

Because in Iran they'd be facing street protests.

Re:SMIME

[oldspewey]

Ahhh, a page from the book of "it's funny because it's true."

I used to be "that guy" ... giving advice, offering to help people configure things, recommending hardware and software, etc. Then I slowly came to realize a few things:

- People don't value the time you spend helping them
- The more dire the warning being delivered, the more people resent hearing your advice
- Nothing ever sinks in. By constantly offering to help people, all that happens is they develop a mindset of dependence. They sort of slide into the belief that computers are so hopelessly complex they will never be able to figure anything out.

I now just quietly accept the notion that most of my friends and family are riddled with trojans, and I assume that anything I send to them is also being sent to a criminal syndicate in Bulgaria.

Stop engaging in anti-politics.

[copponex]

Any American who complains that they can't change things ought to be totally ashamed of themselves. Despite all of my criticisms of this country, I do keep in mind that it is one of the freest and most open societies that has ever existed. The biggest problem is overcoming propaganda that tells you that you can't do anything.

And no, voting for someone doesn't count. It's just the least you can do. A real democracy is when a bunch of people from a community get together, decide what they would like done, and then elect someone from their group to go do it.

To all the centers of power, this is known as the "crisis of democracy" - when people actually start running their own country. It's their nightmare scenario, and a goal we should all be dedicated to achieving.

Re:My Dearest NSA,

[BlackSabbath]

Wow! One of the most eloquent Slashdot posts in defense of the Republic that I've read in a while.

However one of your assumptions is fading fast. When you state:
> This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it.
This assumes that:
(a) people understand "freedom" as the founding fathers understood it and not merely freedom to consume whatever the talking heads tell us.
(b) people are actually willing to risk their lives for it.

Unfortunately, I think that the transformation of the enlightened Republic to the Idiocracy portrayed in film is well underway. In addition I believe that even those that still value true freedom are increasingly less willing to risk their lives for it. Hell, most aren't even willing to risk their comfort for it. A society that is too comfortable with itself is perfectly setup for golden handcuffs.

Ironically, in Iran right now, people actually ARE putting themselves in harms way to protest apparent fraud on the part of the executive.

I sympathise 100% with what you've written but sadly I'm convinced that its almost too late for the republic to be saved without "refreshing the tree of liberty". The sad part is that a lot of people would read your post and wonder why you're over-reacting. They think of "Democracy" and "Freedom" as mere trademarks associated with the US of A. Meanwhile, every pillar of the constitution is under attack and while some are noticing, very few are standing up.

Wake up people! Look at what's happening in Iran - the lesson is this: no matter how powerless you think you are, governments of all persuasions fear nothing more than a populace aroused to anger. To quote Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"