Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Ordered To Provide All Customer Data To NSA

Rick Zeman writes "According to Wired, an order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court '...requires Verizon to give the NSA metadata on all calls within the U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign countries on an "ongoing, daily basis" for three months.' Unlike orders in years past, there's not even the pretense that one of the parties needed to be in a foreign country. It is unknown (but likely) that other carriers are under the same order."

66 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. Shocking! by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know about you, but I am shocked! *ONLY* 3 months?

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
    1. Re:Shocking! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It repeats every 3 months. It'd be illegal if it were longer, but an indefinately repeating 3 month order is not indefinite. So say the people who extend copyright 50 years every 49 years for a new, longer "limited" time.

    2. Re:Shocking! by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This seems unlikely to be a focused surveillance effort

      Yeah, I think collecting logs of all calls made by 70+ million people for 3 months pretty much rules out "focused surveillance" ;)

    3. Re:Shocking! by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somebody reported that one of their friends heard that a Muslim had just signed up with Verizon.

      The NSA is just trying to track him down.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Shocking! by doctor+woot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somebody reported that one of their friends heard that a Muslim had just signed up with Verizon.

      The NSA is just trying to track him down.

      Don't be ridiculous, that's what the drones are for.

    5. Re:Shocking! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only real surprise is that the NSA needs Verison to give it to them.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Shocking! by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, because of the sequester, they didn't have enough budget ...

      Reminds me of after 9/11 when there were so many feds abusing wiretaps they couldn't afford to pay the bills and were getting them shut off.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:Shocking! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3

      It's illegal anyway. There is no way in Hell -- or anywhere else -- that this is constitutional.

    8. Re:Shocking! by gtall · · Score: 4, Informative

      It appears to have been started in 2006, and has been renewed every three months ever since. This is the meta-data they are collecting, not voice or data call messages. Apparently, they use it to develop network maps that is supposed to help them track terrorist networks into, out of, and within the U.S.

    9. Re:Shocking! by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lose their job? If Obama's attitude to leaks - uncontrolled leaks, that is - is anything to go by, they're probably going to round up and execute every 10th Verizon employee or something. And loudly proclaim that it's constitutional and necessary for national security reasons which you can't be trusted to hear.

      "I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable." -- Barack Obama, May 23, 2013

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    10. Re:Shocking! by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Verizon already collects all this data. Is that unconstitutional? Verizon is probably only upset about this because they normally SELL this data and the gov't is forcing them to hand it over for free. That's the real outrage here. The NSA should pay for it just like everyone else.

    11. Re:Shocking! by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Normally Verizon sells this data, so the only thing the gov't is doing here is forcing them to hand it over for free. The NSA can't pay for it like everyone else because of the sequester.

    12. Re:Shocking! by compro01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope. This battle was lost more than 30 years ago in Smith v. Maryland. Metadata (number called, time, etc.) on calls, collected and stored by phone companies in the normal course of business, has no 4th amendment protection and the acquisition of it does not require a warrant.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  2. What would happen if they required names? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although Verizon is not required to hand over caller subscriber information under the order, this doesn’t mean the NSA can’t identify the owners of phone numbers on its own. Intelligence and data collected from other sources can help match the names of accountholders to the numbers collected in the sweep.

    This is a puzzle. What magic line would they cross by demanding names as well, when the amount of information they already require is enough to determine the individuals involved in a call and then some. This smells of a careful exclusion crafted by the AG or some such to skirt a law.

    1. Re:What would happen if they required names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although Verizon is not required to hand over caller subscriber information under the order, this doesnâ(TM)t mean the NSA canâ(TM)t identify the owners of phone numbers on its own. Intelligence and data collected from other sources can help match the names of accountholders to the numbers collected in the sweep.

      This is a puzzle. What magic line would they cross by demanding names as well, when the amount of information they already require is enough to determine the individuals involved in a call and then some. This smells of a careful exclusion crafted by the AG or some such to skirt a law.

      What did you expect when laws are made by lawyers, a profession whose sole job description is to find technicalities and loopholes that either excuse behavior that citizens would find abhorrent, or criminalize behavior that citizens find acceptable. What we used to call "torture" and "eavesdropping" are now legal because they're not technically torture or eavesdropping. Videotaping a cop beating a citizen is technically eavesdropping in many states, however, and after you've dealt with the criminal charge, if the cop was singing "Stop Resisting" to the tune of "Happy Birthday", you're still civilly liable for copyright infringement.

      "Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."
      - Meringuoid, http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid=14107454

      It's almost like these technicalities were intended to be abused from the day they were introduced to the House floor.

  3. Second amandment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you ever argued that the second amandment is here to ensure you can protect yourself from opressive goverment, it is about time to stack up on ammo. I'd say its going to go down soon, but in case you haven't noticed, it all already went down.

    1. Re:Second amandment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The military has bigger guns, but the members of the military are citizens too. Asking the military to kill their friends and family and neighbors is not so simple a task as you might think.

    2. Re:Second amandment by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As it happens, that was Ceausescu's fatal mistake. Even a communist army indoctrinated in dictator worship from the cradle balked at shooting their own friends and neighbors.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Second amandment by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't be silly. I mean, yeah, the first might be practically moot; the second, no longer a matter of common consensus; the fourth, a memory; the fifth, a cliche; the sixth, given way to vacations in sunny south Cuba; the seventh, dronestruck; the eighth, enhanced out of existence; the ninth, elastic and commerce claused from the public consciousness; and the tenth, a lost cause. But the people would really get worked up if they lose their third amendment rights! Then they'd stop voting for one of the two worse evils.

    4. Re:Second amandment by greenbird · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plus the US president doesn't rule by fiat.

      I'd say this is pretty strong evidence he does. This should be both unconstitutional and illegal by all publicly known laws. If it's legal by secret laws that's pretty much the definition of ruling by fiat.

      As history has shown.

      The British empire kept very few English soldiers anywhere except the British isles.

      In what period of modern history did the British keep the main part of their Army in the home Islands? The British relied on their navy to protect the home Islands. The Army kept order in the Empire...and fought Napoleon occasionally when they ran out of reliable countries to bribe to fight him.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
  4. Don't worry by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am sure it will only be for 3 months and certainly they would not ask again. It is only a one time thing, of that you can rest easy, citizen.

    1. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You got nothing to hide citizen, right?

  5. The full story and the court order at The Guardian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The full story, with link to the court order, is at The Guardian -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

  6. Re:All customers!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

    The story and TFA say "The sweeping order, issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, requires Verizon to give the NSA metadata on all calls within the U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign countries on an “ongoing, daily basis” for three months."

    What have you seen that restricts it to a small subset? The actual order is secret, and I didn't find any links to the actual order, though a number of organizations claimed to have a copy.

  7. Tip of the iceberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Verizon data is the tip of the iceberg, this is a tiny leak, it only covers an FBI request, it doesn't cover the full data grab. Congressmen, Ron Wyden, Mark Udall etc., ex CIA, everyone keeps hinting at the extent of the data grab and people go into denial about it.

    Other data being grabbed:
    1. URLs visited, times and ip addresses (sniffed from the network intercepts put in in post 2001)
    2. Email headers (right there in the pipe)
    3. Linkage data, you sent the email from that iPad/Android tablet? Theres the link between IP address and email address (right there in the pipe).
    4. Search data, https is no obstacle to a FISA warrant.
    5. Billing records of the phone, the identity of the user of the phone, data linking to their email address etc.
    6. Visa/Mastercard/Credit Card/Paypal/WesternUnion, ATM data,.....
    7. Bank transactions, (and not just the SWIFT data the EU handed them), handed over under excuse of 'laundering'
    8. Facebook, all visible data and all deleted data
    9. What you said on slashdot, even as AC, including drafts
    10. What you said on every public website on every blog, on everything linked to your ip address and in turn linked to your real id.
    11. Every public'ly buyable database
    12. Your voting preference (already well analysed for political parties)
    13. Your IRS data
    14. The contents of all email older than 6 months.
    15. Add that to the Verizon data (where you are, who you called, when)

    It's a zoo, you're in a cage and those creepy guys outside staring at you, they're your zoo keepers.

    Be careful what you say, to whom, who you're with when you say it, re-read you emails with a jaundice eye, can it be misconstrued by a malicious actor?
    Are you outside the USA? Do you think you're immune?! Have they got any lever on your elected politicians? Is he a puppet now?

    Could you, or have you ever upset anyone with access to that surveillance data?
    Have you ever expressed views that might cause you to be targetted by anyone with access to that surveillance data?

    Have you expressed pro-gun views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is pro-gun?
    Have you expressed anti-gun views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is anti-gun?
    Have you expressed strong Republican views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is Republican?
    Have you expressed strong Democrat views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is a Democrat?

    The only safe views to hold in a surveillance state are bland views. Be grey, keep your head down, express no strong views. Do nothing of note have friends who do nothing of note.

    Don't think, that just because you're doing nothing illegal, that you're safe.
    Having an affair is not illegal, yet General Patraeus was outed by on FBI agent Fred Humphries as a favor to a friend!
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/holly-petraeus-scott-broadwell-silent-petraeus-scandal/story?id=17718793

    And in retaliation his supporters outed General Allen for having an affair with the FBI agents friend, and leaked photos (taken from surveillance of his friend) of a picture of him shirtless he sent her.

    Do you really think you've done nothing wrong? That you have nothing to hide?
    I'm pretty sure your data contains enough to lose you your job, end your marriage, lose custody of your children.

    1. Re:Tip of the iceberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No big deal. There are no storm troopers in the streets."

      Only because they aren't needed. Fear is cheaper and it can be everywhere at once.

    2. Re:Tip of the iceberg by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm fucked aren't I?

      You think you're in trouble? I've been running my yap online since I was fifteen years old. At this point there's no sense in even closing it, that would probably look more suspicious than continuing to rant. "Wait, what is he planning?" Probably a fucking nap, but don't tell these spooks that. They'll think I'm dreaming something up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. But I'm a democrat.. by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After many years of travel and living in other countries, my political views shifted from right to left and I felt myself to a "liberal" democrat.
    Like so many others, I was caught up in the whole "hope" for change with Mr. Obama.
    One could say that regarding the police state, he is worse than nearly all who came before him, but I think that is missing the point. Democrat, Republican, I have come to the realization that it makes not difference at all. The system is simply designed to abuse.
    The alphabet soup agencies do not care who is the present. After all, they will still be there after the President is long gone and the next fellow seeking ever greater powers replaces him.
    So, does it really matter who you vote for?
    I really doubt it. The folks who have enough cash to even register with voters are all part of the same socioeconomic class. Classes look out for their own, not for other classes.
    I suspect things will get much, much worse before they ever get better. At least if history is any indication of the future.
    Good luck citizens.

    1. Re:But I'm a democrat.. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. I vote Green whenever there is a Green candidate. It's not so much that I adore their politics as it is I abhor the Republicans and Democrats. It may be a lost cause but I refuse to support what is going on.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:But I'm a democrat.. by yoshi_mon · · Score: 4, Informative

      There will be no real party other than the money party until we get money of out of the system.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

      There are some very real and good ways we can get the money out of our system. And of course money will always be a part of any system but it will not be the same as since:

      Buckley v. Valeo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

      And then we let the floodgates open with:

      Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

      We are not in any way shape or form a democracy if a small percentage of people are allowed to vote with their dollars as well as their individual vote.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    3. Re:But I'm a democrat.. by Specter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Money has nothing to do with it. Money is the symptom. Power is the problem, specifically consolidation of power at the national level. Money follows power. We've allowed way too much power to be consolidated at the national level. Every single problem we're talking about here can be traced to that.

      In theory we could ameliorate the problem by returning to the original intent of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. In practice, I see no way for that to happen since ALL of the political actors involved want further consolidation not less. For special interests, it's way more efficient to lobby the federal government rather than 50 state governments. For federal politicians, consolidating power increases their ability to sell their power off to the special interests. Rank-and-file members of team red and team blue both want more power consolidated at the federal level to better push their respective ideological agendas (both of which are rooted in the idea that the hoi polloi can't be trusted to know what's good for them).

      You can continue to rail against money in politics but until you address the disease instead of the symptom you're wasting our time and your breath.

    4. Re:But I'm a democrat.. by moeinvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your argument boils down to:

      > The government is completely corrupt and owned by wealthy special interests.

      > Therefore, we need to give the government additional powers so that they will be less corrupt.

      That makes no sense. You can't eliminate corruption by expanding the power of the corrupt entity. You need to take power AWAY from that entity so that regardless of their corruption, the harm that they can inflict on the people is limited. The Founders understood this. If you have a small, decentralized government with a set of strictly limited powers, then even the WORST people you put in office can't do much damage.

      For example, suppose the federal government was strictly limited to spending 10% of GDP. Could Bush have started 2 wars? Could the government have spent $1T bailing out Wall St. banks? Too much government power in too few hands is what enables the worst abuses.

  9. Which amendment would you like to lose today? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how there's such a huge passionate uproar about supposed loss of second amendement rights, but comparitively little concern about actual loss of fourth amendment rights...

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:Which amendment would you like to lose today? by Starteck81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny how there's such a huge passionate uproar about supposed loss of second amendement rights, but comparitively little concern about actual loss of fourth amendment rights...

      Actually I make a very big deal about the second amendment because I care so much about the other amendments. The second is the last line of defense in the protection of the others. It is the only amendment that gives the people a physical recourse should the three branches of government fail to up hold the Constitution.

      While were on the topic, the people that said they didn't want universal background checks because they feared a national registry could be constructed seem less like silly now, don't they?

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    2. Re:Which amendment would you like to lose today? by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    3. Re:Which amendment would you like to lose today? by Legion303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "USA military is by far the strongest military in the world"

      And look how bogged down it got against peasants and farmers in Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

      Your argument is amusing.

    4. Re:Which amendment would you like to lose today? by moeinvt · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm so tired of the stupid fucking argument that it's impossible for a lightly armed militia to fight the U.S. military because the military has drones, jet fighters, SAT intel, Abrams tanks, etc. History, even recent history, proves otherwise.

      Look no further than AFGHANISTAN where a bunch of guys with rifles and improvised explosives have been fighting the world's most advanced military for 12 years! Now consider this:

      Afghanistan 647,500 sq km 30 M people
      USA(lower 48) 8,080,464 sq km 306M people

      What makes you think an advanced military is going to be more successful fighting against guys with rifles and IEDs in a country with 12X the land area and 10X the number of people? How many government buildings in that area? How would they even begin to deploy their forces to guard every single one of them.

      Your ignorance is that you assume the resistance fighters would gather together in a group, identify themselves and try to fight military forces in a head to head clash of arms. That's idiotic. In a real scenario, they would operate in small groups, attack soft targets and then blend back in with the population. If the government forces tried to use their advanced weapons, they'd end up killing a bunch of innocent civilians, which only foments hatred against the government and fuels the insurgency.

      If you need more food for thought, look at the time, resources and manpower the government expended on this Dorner guy in California. ONE GUY with a few firearms. Now imagine 100,000 Dorners spread all around the country. Where is government going to find the manpower to fight that? How are they going to finance this war on the American people when they are already bankrupt? The people fighting them sure as hell won't be paying taxes.

      Then there's the question of how many soldiers and law enforcement officers will actually obey orders to shoot their fellow citizens.

      We have the Second Amendment, not so that a group of yahoos can take over the government, but so a POPULAR uprising can resist and depose a tyrannical government.

      For further reference:

      "The War of the Flea" by Tabor
      "Understanding 4th Generation War" by William Lind

  10. They told me this would happen.. by ams-maverick · · Score: 5, Funny

    if I voted for Romney. And they were right.

  11. All data all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    William Biddy, who was involved in the early part of this data grab, explaining why he became a whistleblower:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

    This is from 2012, before Boston. He says they've intercepted at least 15 TRILLION communications with the system.

    Worth noting, is that despite a decade of data grabs, they didn't stop Boston. The claimed purpose doesn't work.

    1. Re:All data all the time by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      William Biddy, who was involved in the early part of this data grab, explaining why he became a whistleblower:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

      This is from 2012, before Boston. He says they've intercepted at least 15 TRILLION communications with the system.

      Worth noting, is that despite a decade of data grabs, they didn't stop Boston. The claimed purpose doesn't work.

      I'm very skeptical about the utility of "grab everything" evidence collection. After 9/11 - back when we weren't collecting anywhere near as much information as we are now - there was a feeling of "we should have caught that", based on after-the-fact understanding of clues. But IMO it simply wasn't a realistic expectation: intelligence agencies are pyramidal, so lots of details get filtered out when the 10,000 people at the bottom pass their reports up to the handful at the top. If two closely related clues are separated enough that they don't get put together at the bottom, odds are that they'll both seem irrelevant and not get passed up.

      With 15 trillion intercepts, I'm sure the emphasis has shifted to computational analysis, but I'm not convinced that that makes any difference. Even the NSA can't do combinatoric crosschecks on 15 trill intercepts, so stuff is going to have to get digested and pushed upward just like with people.

      And so I'm utterly unsurprised to read:

      Worth noting, is that despite a decade of data grabs, they didn't stop Boston

      Shoes on the ground catch a phenomenal amount of stuff.[*] Is Big Data catching anything?

      [*] I remember ~10 years ago a redneck couple in Texas was going to blow up some chemical plant when the wind was blowing the right direction to kill everyone in the adjacent company town (for obscure reasons). Somehow an undercover cop was on to them, got recruited into their plot, and hid a microphone/camera in their dashboard. The news televised the footage of the three of them sitting in their truck on a hillside overlooking the plant, discussing the plot, when the men with handcuffs came to take two of them away.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:All data all the time by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The key isn't to actually catch anything, the key is to convince people you can, then snow over gullible juries in court with tales of how you have super secret evidence that proves you're a pedophile terrorist drug pusher but if they told them they'd have to kill them, so they find you guilty.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  12. 143,364 similar FISA warrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

    Since 2004, when they started spying on Americans, there have been 143,364 FISA warrants, similar to this one, applying to Americans.

    This is one warrant among 143364 similar warrants. 0.0006975% of the warrants.

    1. Re:143,364 similar FISA warrants by kasperd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the document it forbids Verizon from discussing the letter, even with legal.

      If I was the one receiving such a letter, I can see three options for how to deal with it.

      • Ask legal to translate the letter to English for me
      • Escalate it up the managment path as far as necessary.
      • Tell the sender they reached the wrong person, and ask them to instead send it to [address of somebody in legal].

      Complying with the letter without questioning is not an option, because I do not have the necessary knowledge to know if that would be legal, or to even tell if the letter was legitimate.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  13. Re:All customers!!! by bencvt · · Score: 3

    I didn't find any links to the actual order, though a number of organizations claimed to have a copy.

    There's a link to the actual order in TFA.

  14. It could easily be focused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like everyone else, I have no idea what they're doing, but no, it doesn't rule out focused surveillance. It could easily be a way to obscure who they're surveilling, so that Verizon, for example, has no way of knowing which customer they're interested in.

    Say I'm a burglar, and I want to know when you're not home. When you're not home, is the best time to break into your house and take all your stuff.

    One strategy is to stand outside your house, staring at it. You come out, we stare at each other for a few nervous seconds, and then you drive off. Aha, you're not home now. So I begin picking the lock on your door. The last thing I think, before you smash in the back of my head with a shovel, is how clever I was to make sure you had left. I was too fuckwitted to think you might be curious by our earlier staring encounter, and that you drove around the block, parked, and came to see WTF I was up to.

    Another strategy is that I hang out at a major intersection, seemingly taking notice of every car that passes by. Little do you (or anyone else) know, yours was the one I was interested in. You don't it's it's suspicious at all, to drive by someone standing by the side of the road a mile from your house. That guy was just looking at all the cars going by. Not focused at all, huh? Then how come your house is the one I emptied that day?

    If wired leaks a story about how Verizon was forwarding records about Dahamma to NSA, then you know they're watching you. If wired has a story about how Verizon is forwarding records about Dahamma plus a hundred million other people to the NSA, well shit, that wasn't about you. Nothing to be nervous about. They're not out to get you; they're out to get everyone.

    Or maybe they're really out to get just you.

    1. Re:It could easily be focused by Sipper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Like everyone else, I have no idea what they're doing, but no, it doesn't rule out focused surveillance.

      What's being acquired as evidence is very wide, and the NSA is famous for both large data storage and building a database of interpersonal connections. Regardless if the particular reason this information is being gathered, I'm working under the assumption that they're going to be using the information in whatever way they can, rather than for the original reason they're taking the data.

      I find it really concerning that a secret court can order such wide data transfer to the NSA, and also order that the order be kept secret.

  15. When I watched V for Vendetta years ago... by Camael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...I remember thinking that no sane citizens of any democratic country would ever allow the the state to amass such abusive and intrusive powers.

    And then, I read today's Slashdot article.

    So, given that it was bad under Bush, and is now worse under Obama, it is readily apparent that regardless of whichever political party you choose to vote for, all roads lead to the same end. The system will prevail. Is anarchy the only solution then?

  16. Re:What was Verizon's response? by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 4, Funny

    What was Verizon's response?

    No need to worry, you can trust corporations.

  17. Xbox One = NSA spy platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NSA spying on all electronic communication is (very) old news. Microsoft's Xbox One (increasingly known as the XBone) has been designed from the ground up to massively increase the surveillance abilities of the NSA.

    The new console has 8 CPU cores and 8GB of memory. It actually runs as two distinct computers, with two CPU cores and up to 3GB of RAM forming a special 'Kinect' computer system that has its own OS, and is continuously processing the input from the Kinect sensor systems, regardless of what the user is currently using the console for (including AAA games that appear to NOT use the Kinect sensors in any way).

    The Kinect computer is constantly generating snapshots of data from the camera and microphone array, and stores these snapshots as encrypted files in a dedicated area of the enclosed HDD. These snapshots include full face photographs of each new person who enters the room. The Kinect computer is designed to compare sound and video/image data with a signature list (that can be changed and updated remotely), so that full video and sound recording can be triggered if the signature patterns are matched. This data can be either stored on the HDD (again, as encrypted streams) or immediately streamed to a remote server over the Internet if the console is currently online.

    Signature triggers can include things like gunshots or sounds of explosions, people talking in a given language (say Arabic), or a man shouting at a woman.

    Signatures can also (thanks to the body movement recognition ability of Kinect) represent given physical actions by people (for instance, two people engaging in love-making). Yes, you read that correctly- the Xbox One can be set to start streaming video to any remote server on the Internet if it detects people having sex in front of the camera.

    Most 'signatures' are quite small pieces of data, and the console can have many thousands of signatures active at any time. Usually triggering a signature will allow an actual Human to remotely inspect some of the snapshot data being constantly generated to determine whether to activate full streaming. This practice is similar to that used by the NSA for decades when spying on ALL phonecalls- phonecalls are also routed through signature systems, and those that trigger on any signature are flagged for immediate inspection (although ALL phonecalls are actually recorded and later subject to much deeper mining).

    The NSA (and other security services around the globe) have long dreamed of placing their spying equipment into the homes of every citizen. Mobile phones have gone some way to achieving this (the NSA collects, where practical, all the image data captured on mobile phones, but this is obviously severely limited by the bandwidth issues). The Xbox One puts a dream spy system into the living rooms of millions of people, together with massive amounts of mains powered computing resources to pre-process the data captured.

    Microsoft demands that ALL applications and games have some Kinect functionality to encourage owners to keep the Kinect bar fully 'calibrated'. The Kinect system CANNOT ever be deactivated. If the Kinect sensors report any failure, the console refuses to run games/applications. If the sensors detect any problem with visibility (like tape over the cameras, or Kinect turned to face a wall), the console pesters the user to recalibrate the system. One can start a game, and then block the cameras in some sense, but research by Microsoft and the NSA has determined that people willing to buy the Xbox One, even if they are aware of the worst stories about invasion of privacy, will cease taking any measures to protect their privacy after only a couple of weeks of ownership.

    Conversely, those who are prepared to ALWAYS block the cameras when not using a 'Kinect' game, or those who forego Kinect functionality altogether and permanently 'blind' the sensors will prove to be the tiniest minority, and can be safely considered to be no different from those who refuse to buy the console in the first plac

  18. Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently DHS can search laptops and phones based on "hunches" as well.

      I'm not a generally paranoid person, but damn it all to hell. You've got the DOJ and it appears members of the Obama administration targeting "enemies" and now you've got them on a run with them being able to do taps because of whatever they feel like. And people called Bush bad? This is right out of "how to create your own dictatorship." What's next? Said enemies start to disappear because they're not toeing the Obama line.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently DHS can search laptops and phones based on "hunches" as well.

      I'm not a generally paranoid person, but damn it all to hell. You've got the DOJ and it appears members of the Obama administration targeting "enemies" and now you've got them on a run with them being able to do taps because of whatever they feel like. And people called Bush bad? This is right out of "how to create your own dictatorship." What's next? Said enemies start to disappear because they're not toeing the Obama line.

      Aided and abetted by resources made available by the Bush Administration.

      This is why rabid partisans - among others - should be careful what they wish for. They may get it, only to discover that it ends up in the hands of the other side.

      But no matter which side holds them, we all lose.

    3. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Vermonter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I find it hilarious how many people absolutely hated Bush, and now love Obama, despite the fact that Bush and Obama are really pretty similar as power grabbing politicians. But then again, most people vote based on solely R or D, so I guess it's not surprising.

    4. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Bush did it within the law. Obama is breaking laws so fast he needed to pass some big new ones just to have more to break.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I kept saying just this when Bush supporters called him expanding the powers of the Executive Office "needed" and "the right thing to do." I would always ask two questions:

      1) Would you be ok with someone from the opposing party to be President with those powers? I'd usually use Hillary Clinton in this question because, at the time, she seemed to be the Democratic front runner and the name Clinton is a trigger word for many Republicans.

      2) How could a future President abuse these powers? Even assuming Bush or his successor didn't abuse them, it would only be a matter of time before someone did. That's why we need plenty of checks and balances. To keep one person/branch of government from getting too powerful.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not a generally paranoid person, but damn it all to hell. You've got the DOJ and it appears members of the Obama administration targeting "enemies" and now you've got them on a run with them being able to do taps because of whatever they feel like. And people called Bush bad? This is right out of "how to create your own dictatorship." What's next? Said enemies start to disappear because they're not toeing the Obama line.

      And are the Republicans in Congress busy applying checks and balances to stop this? No. But they are outraged about the IRS thing in Ohio. Outraged, I tell you.

      Did the Democrats set a precedent for reigning in a President when Bush started pushing the surveillance beyond what was legal and Constitutional? Did they challenge the "Unitary Executive" concept? No.

      Are the pure-as-driven-snow Paul boys out there putting their asses on the line to expose and stop this overreach? No.

      I guess Ron Wyden occasionally makes a little peep, but you know, because of "national security" he's not at liberty to divulge what he knows. Bullshit. Oath to uphold the Constitution overrules that. Or not.

      Will voting someone else in as President fix this? No, not if Congress isn't willing to keep them honest. We can't rely on some pinkie-swear by candidate-whoever to safeguard our Constitutional principles and not exceed their authority once they realize there's no penalty if they do. The division of government was supposed to prevent this kind of thing, because each branch would jealously guard their powers from the other two. This got broken.

      The President -- and by that I mean whoever's in the office -- doesn't have "Enemies" in Congress to go after. They're all in on it. It's got more bi-partisan support than baseball and apple pie.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by OakDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course! If Bush hadn't done this and that, then our glorious leader wouldn't have been led into temptation.

      Remember kids, it's always Bush's fault. If you just remember that, you'll be OK.

    8. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's so funny how people toe the line with their political parties, despite the fact that each party has their faults and, in a lot of cases, do the exact same misdeeds. It's sad that the majority of people seem to never come to the realization that no matter who they vote for of the 2-party system, they get the same thing. As long as their focused on ancillary, unimportant issues, this may never change.

    9. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem as I see it, it that the people who said Bush was horribly bad, have repeatedly voted for Obama. Even after it became obvious that Obama doesn't give a damn about civil liberties.

    10. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aided and abetted by resources made available by the Bush Administration.

      This is why rabid partisans - among others - should be careful what they wish for. They may get it, only to discover that it ends up in the hands of the other side.

      But no matter which side holds them, we all lose.

      Actually, no. Frankly, if this were to catch terrorists, as they claim, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. The Bush administration had these powers, and as far as we know, they used them to monitor terrorists. If the Bush administration had been caught abusing federal power to oppress political opponents, he would have never been granted these powers. If he had abused other powers after granting them, they would have been stripped away. There were checks and balances.

      Bush was watched and when he screwed up or even appeared to overstep his bounds, he was hammered. There were those screaming for his impeachment over the Valerie Plame affair, which was merely leaking the name of an operative who had been sitting at a desk in Washington for over five years. The administration didn't even have anything to do with leaking the name! Scooter Libbey went to jail over the matter because he said he couldn't remember a conversation he had that was unrelated to the case. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage faced no jail time. He wasn't even charged. The Bush presidency didn't need to push boundaries to see where the limits were. They were punished for petty crimes they had nothing to do with.

      Compare that with the current administration. The Obama administration has been pushing boundaries since it came into office. Fast and Furious, lies and demonization of opponents of Obamacare, lying over Benghazi, using the IRS to oppress opposing political groups, phone tapping the AP, fake charges to get a warrant of the Fox News reporter AND HIS PARENTS, lying about knowledge of the fake charges over the warrant, and many many other abuses of power. The administration has not been held to account for any of them. The Republicans try, but when the press goes against them, Republicans lose votes and are labeled as racists.

      This administration has been pushing the boundaries from the beginning and has not found the edge yet. They will keep pushing until people go to jail, and even then, as long as it's low level people, they won't care. This is extremely dangerous, and all Obama's supporters can do is continue to blame Bush.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    11. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (see my point?)

      cutting taxes was treasonous, given how bad we were (and are), money-wise. but since his base is the powerful guys, he never had any fear of being punished.

      great system we have here, huh?

      No, I don't see your point. The economy was heading to a recession when Bush was elected. He lowered taxes to bring it back up. The next year, the economy wasn't falling, but was still flat, so he cut more taxes, and the economy improved. There are financial sites where you can make charts that plot the economy/GDP/taxes to see the effect.

      If the real estate bubble hadn't popped in 2006, if it hadn't burst until 2008, Bush would have finished with a great economy and probably a budget surplus. That means that on the budget/taxes chart, the lines were converging quickly, and would have crossed. Unfortunately, that didn't happen that way, and Bush gets the blame for the collapse that he actually warned about, that his detractors said wouldn't happen.

      Now, if you put Bush's method to grow the economy (which worked) against Obama's method (which have not worked (jobless recovery? what a fucking joke)), there is no question which one put more money into more American's (as in, the little guy's) pockets.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    12. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush, at least, did have the understandable problem that everyone was overreacting at the time, and that after 9/11, he needed to do what it took to prevent more attacks. Bear in mind, his problem was that everyone thought the government was asleep at the wheel and not cooperating, etc. The actions may have been wrong or overkill, but they were designed to solve a specific problem.

      The thing with the Obama Administration is that they pledged to basically stop "being like Bush", specifically in terms of Gitmo, and other things. If they wanted to, they could have pushed to get the Patriot Act repealed. They didn't. And even if they couldn't have gotten it repealed legislatively... they didn't have to actually *use* those provisions.

      So now, you have a group that campaigns against the Bush era Patriot Act on principle, but when they get into power, they not only don't get it repealed, they *use all of that power as much as they want*. So, the Obama Administration are either hypocrites, or they learned that their whole viewpoint on surveillance were incorrect and the Bush Administration was *right*.

    13. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by AdamThor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The economy was heading to a recession when Bush was elected. He lowered taxes to bring it back up."

      I remember when Bush (the second) was trying to push the tax cuts. The initial take was that there was going to be a big surplus. Bush's response was that we should cut taxes to return that money to the people. Then the economy turned down and the surplus evaporated. Bush's response was that we should cut taxes to stimulate the economy. What I took from this is that Bush's support for tax cuts had nothing to do with the state of the economy.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
  19. The true delusion by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    thinking that your buddies and your machineguns are going to overthrow the most powerful nation in the world is just delusional.

    Thinking that the professional military will be the ones trying to stop you when things become bad enough that the average U.S. citizen even considerings the attempt - that is the truest delusion.

    We have a professional military made up of independent thinkers from all over the U.S. They are not robots, they are not trained to obey without question. If you ask them to start firing on home towns they are going to want to have a pretty clear reason why.

    Citizens being armed just keeps everyone honest and is basically just like using a seat belt. You'll probably never need it, but if you need it you REALLY need it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Solution is smaller government / reduced spending by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it is readily apparent that regardless of whichever political party you choose to vote for, all roads lead to the same end. The system will prevail.

    Not if you consistently vote in people who aim for reduced spending and smaller government.

    As you say, all roads lead to the same place. But a smaller government with a smaller budget can simply only do so much. The smaller the amount of money the government gets the less money there is to track everyone, store data on everyone, or funnel money back out of government to private citizens who helped elect people.

    It truly is the ONLY way to limit the reduction of potential harm from the system.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. Re:Solution is smaller government / reduced spendi by Legion303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Not if you consistently vote in people who aim for reduced spending and smaller government."

    I've seen a lot of mouthy political bullshit along these lines, but no actual politicians who are interested in implementing it (lots and lots of politicians who want to reduce spending in areas they don't like, while increasing it for areas they do, however).