Slashdot Mirror


US Mining Data Directly From 9 Silicon Valley Companies

Rick Zeman writes "Hot on the heels of Verizon's massive data dump to NSA comes news of 'PRISM' where The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person's movements and contacts over time. This program, established in 2007, includes major companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook...and more."

404 comments

  1. land of the free... by versiondub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is anyone really that surprised by this, though?

    1. Re: land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope

    2. Re:land of the free... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are some surprising aspects of it.

      An internal presentation on the Silicon Valley operation, intended for senior analysts in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, described the new tool as the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief, which cited PRISM data in 1,477 articles last year.

      The PRISM program is not a dragnet, exactly. From inside a company’s data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes, but under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all.

      Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness.” That is not a very stringent test. Training materials obtained by the Post instruct new analysts to submit accidentally collected U.S. content for a quarterly report, “but it’s nothing to worry about.”

      --
      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:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      is anyone really that surprised by this, though?

      Agreed,

      Anyone who didn't see this coming 12 years ago had their head in the sand or hasn't read their history.

    4. Re:land of the free... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, we haven't been surprised for a very long time. You can stop asking that question now

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But... but *sniffel* Google wouldn't do evil! This must be an evil Republican plot to smear Google and Obama!

    6. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me Benedict Arnold, do you mind if we go back to being holier than thou about governments in Russia, China....trampling on human rights...if you don't mind?

    7. Re:land of the free... by buswolley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have been pretty sure for a while now that a good portion of cookie based data collection is sold as a product to the US government, but also other governments. Hell, some companies may just be fronts for surveillance activities.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    8. Re:land of the free... by buswolley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BTW, its not about being surprised. Its about taking the moment of outrage and national attention and trying to effect change.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    9. Re:land of the free... by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Funny

      a good portion of cookie based data collection is sold as a product to the US government

      Oh great, now they know about my secret snacking habits?

    10. Re:land of the free... by White+Flame · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not all that surprising. The scope and size of data is simply too overwhelming even for the NSA, if they were to collect absolutely everything. These technical limitations are the only thing keeping some semblance of practical privacy... for now.

    11. Re:land of the free... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, some companies may just be fronts for surveillance activities.

      Oh, that is a given.

      China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “for the sole purpose of acquiring ... technology

      It is probably not fair for the Chinese to get all the action.

      --
      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
    12. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typically results in shortsighted decision but occasionally otherwise.

    14. Re:land of the free... by justthinkit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then this would be the real reason why "Do not track" is being universally ignored.

      --
      I come here for the love
    15. Re:land of the free... by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...or why Google dropped XMPP support, re-added it, and pretty much dropped it again. Such federation would get in the way of Governmental Monitoring And Intelligence Gathering For Liberty And Freedom And Also Liberty, apparently.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    16. Re:land of the free... by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it is true that Google, for example, is unaware of PRISM, then an appropriate response from Google would be the rapid development and deployment of an EASY TO USE, MULTIPLATFORM browser add on to enable its users to CONVENIENTLY send and receive pgp-encrypted gmail that prevents plaintext from ever reaching Google's servers.

      Encrypted mail is a problem of convenience, not technology. Google has the resources to provide the necessary convenience to a large enough user base that encrypted email could become an expectation.

      I hope one of the major companies is sufficiently principles and sufficiently independent of the United States government (and its academic/corporate/lobbyist friends) that it is willing to do this.

    17. Re:land of the free... by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    18. Re:land of the free... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all.

      Rules can be changed at will as soon as the eye of public scrutiny decided to overlook their abuse due to "a promise that under current policy", the data won't be used to make dragnet

    19. Re:land of the free... by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          I'm only surprised that I don't get frequent visits from O2STK.

          At least I'm sure they're entertained by my phone calls, emails, and risque pictures.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    20. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't federation mean messages from other networkds trickle in too, making it better for watchers? I thought XMPP was centralized, not P2P

    21. Re:land of the free... by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 2

      Certainly not the NSA or the FBI, they saw it coming.

    22. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm not surprised.

      But I'm not happy about it. Are you?

      Very totalitarian times we are living.

    23. Re:land of the free... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      No. I'm not even surprised that the newspapers are surprised.

      It's obvious that the media is getting its own back for Holder's tapping of AP phones a few weeks back. This is simply a petty power struggle between a pair of jilted political class lovers.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    24. Re:land of the free... by tirefire · · Score: 5, Informative

      to CONVENIENTLY send and receive pgp-encrypted gmail that prevents plaintext from ever reaching Google's servers.

      I thought Gmail was free because Google's robots scanned the contents of your emails to determine what advertisements to display next to your inbox. If Google can't read your email, they could only show users random advertisements, or maybe ask them to complete some questionnaire to tick off their interests.

      Either way, I think Google makes less money if they can't read people's Gmail messages, so I doubt we'll see it.

    25. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, its not about being surprised. Its about taking the moment of outrage and national attention and trying to effect change.

      Randall Munroe? Is that you?

    26. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Microsoft has confirmed that by no means is it winding down its anti-Google Scroogle campaign. In fact, the company was so pleased with the last two chapters of its crusade that it's gearing up for a third chapter. So far, the crux of Scroogle has been negative astroturf aimed at revealing Google's alleged lack of privacy concerns, but its not like what Microsoft is doing is so different "

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57572489-75/microsoft-forges-ahead-with-its-anti-google-scroogle-campaign/

    27. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google uses opportunistic TLS encryption of SMTP.

      Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177])
                      by mind.your.own.business (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id XXXXXXXXX
                      (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL)
                      for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:39:11 -0700 (PDT)

      You'll notice that verification failed, and that's because you don't need to purchase a TLS certificate for SMTP. Most mail exchangers, including Google's, don't require verification.

      Of course, if you're using GMail then you really have no right to be outraged, _especially_ if you're a geek. Google tells you up front that they read your e-mail, so why wouldn't you expect that they also hand over stuff to NSA?

      I've been running my own mail, web, and Jabber servers for over a decade. Yes, it takes time and money. But my freedom is worth the price.

      Once the prices come down on those "microcloud" ARM servers, I'd like to purchase a bunch of those and lease them out on-the-cheap as a side business. And I'd point a 24/7 camera at those bad boys. That way people can lease real hardware, so that if the government wants to spy on you, they actually have to serve a warrant. If the camera ever goes out, you know something happened. Sort of like some other ISP once did by regularly posting a "no warrant" notice; if a posting was missed then you no a warrant was issued.

    28. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... but... with Obama, I felt a thrill going up my leg! I really did!

      Plus, with that Palin woman on the ticket, and that old dude...

      What was I supposed to do?

      You can't blame me! It's not my fault!

    29. Re:land of the free... by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Encrypted mail is a problem of convenience, not technology.

      That's only partially true -- there's no way to encrypt or hide the recipient of the email. Do you want the government to know if you're talking to the "wrong" people?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    30. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit about Microsoft... unless you're an office drone it's easy to avoid Microsoft software. Practically every site on the net, including this one, is using Google Analytics, Google Ad Services and Google CDNs, and it's almost impossible to keep your mail from being archived by Gmail (not personally using Gmail isn't enough).

      Unlike Google, Microsoft's leaders weren't lining up to suck Obama dick in the last election cycle either.

    31. Re:land of the free... by patriceweber · · Score: 1

      BTW, its not about being surprised. Its about taking the moment of outrage and national attention and trying to effect change.

      and give future lawsuits some standing....

    32. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a hypothetical world, where not everyone you email uses pgp.

      In this case google will show you ads relevant to things they like, or relevant to their lives.

      If you don't ever email anyone without pgp, then you probably aren't looking at the ads anyway, since you are using a different interface.

    33. Re:land of the free... by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      I currently have an outstanding 53 page complaint with the FCC about how GoogleFiber's ISP terms of services seem disturbingly like a network-neutrality-hypocrisy-of-the-first-order attempt to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to deploy home-hosted services that are functional competitors to gmail. But Dave Schroeder, the Navy Information Warfare Officer who posts here, is still naive enough to think that this issue isn't about taking citizens servers and the empowerment that they manifest away from them.

      http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
      http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.txt

    34. Re:land of the free... by Genda · · Score: 3, Funny

      And just for sh!tz and Googles, how many generations of hardware and/or software away before deep data tools will be able to provide the Government with anything they want to know about anyone they want to know it? If they can now identify possible terrorists by emails and phone calls today, how long before they can spank you for bringing pencil erasers home from work or passing gas in a crowded elevator?

      I used to be slightly creeped out by by folks who were always suggesting the government was out to get us and that people's fillings were being bugged. Arriving at the day when the apparently paranoid and delusional have been vindicated is clearly not a happy thing. There's no extra room for Washington D.C. in my colon. I respectfully request they evacuate my bowel the next time I do the same.

    35. Re:land of the free... by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all.

      You have only their word for it, and they've made it abundantly clear that they will lie to you "for your own good".

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    36. Re:land of the free... by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      Yes, there is. Tor, and before it the three generations of remailers (simple, cypherpunk and mixmaster).

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    37. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encrypted mail is a problem of convenience, not technology.

      That's only partially true -- there's no way to encrypt or hide the recipient of the email.

      Of course there is:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymous_remailer

    38. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://mailvelope.com/ does that (EASY TO USE, MULTIPLATFORM browser add on), and does that well.

    39. Re:land of the free... by Alef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...both of which could of course also be explained perfectly without the need to complicate it with a large-scale conspiracy.

      Google is very much a company of engineers, and from an idealistic engineering perspective, an open and federated architecture like XMPP is nice. But from a business perspective, and with the market penetration and data mining business model that Google has, it can easily be argued that it is not in their interest to open up their platforms like that. That notwithstanding, I suspect the explanation could simply be that it became an unnecessary restraint to the way they wanted to develop their services -- a cost with unclear benefits.

      The same goes for "do not track" -- there may be financial benefits in tracking your users, so why not do it if you can? It's what to be expected.

      Of course the intelligence agencies of developed countries (to which I include China) want to monitor as much as they can, and they probably are to a large extent, but that doesn't mean everything that happens in this world is centred around that.

    40. Re:land of the free... by Sique · · Score: 2
      There is a small problem with this idea though - large numbers.

      Lets say you want to build a Bayesian filter for email scanning. It works fine for single words, if you want to check for spam or other quite easily determinable categories. If you want to scan for word combinations of two words, your filter will already have 100,000 times 100,000 fields, and if you want to scan for short sentences up to 20 words, your filter has to provide 100,000 to the power of 20 fields, or around 10^100.

      And this is just too large to store in the whole universe, as the universe has only around 10^91 elementary particles.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    41. Re:land of the free... by hlavac · · Score: 2

      Yes, but they DID buy Skype just to compromise its communication protocol so that it can be easily tapped for the Sith lord.

    42. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever processing they need to happen could be done on the client, which then sends the encrypted email to Google along with information about what kind of ads to show. That would leak something about the theme of the email, but it would leak much less information than the email itself. Perhaps, from Google's perspective, the more serious problem is that it would leak more of Google's algorithms, since they would have to be in plain view in the client.

    43. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!

      In fact the very problem IS that nobody is surprised by it, yet you or me or OP or anyone would *never ever* do even the slightest thing about it!

      THAT is why it's still news.
      So quit your idiotic parroting!

    44. Re: land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount collected is likely more a factor of what they can store. That changes once their new data centers are completed in Utah and Maryland.

    45. Re:land of the free... by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Anyone who didn't see this coming 12 years ago had their head in the sand or hasn't read their history.

      - anyone who didn't see this coming from the year 1911, when the government successfully destroyed private property rights of a large private economy of scale (Standard Oil), anyone who didn't see this coming since 1913, when gov't took the unauthorised power to print money (the Fed) and to steal private property 'Constitutionally' (income related taxes) and since 1917, when government authorised the Fed to monetise gov't debt and not set fake interest rates had their heads in the sand and has no clue about history.

      Anyone who didn't see the coming economic collapse since 1971, when the gov't severed the last ties between money real and imaginary is completely oblivious of all history and has no capability of thinking logically.

    46. Re:land of the free... by Nexion · · Score: 2

      Problem is, they aren't going after foreigners anymore. They've humped that corpse dry. The new excuse for your tattered civil liberties comes from farming some home grown "terrorists". So they are looking at YOU!

    47. Re:land of the free... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You've obviously not worked with search indexes.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    48. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gmail has ads? Maybe I should turn off my ad blockers and see what I am interested in.

    49. Re:land of the free... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      and they still have their heads up you know where, they still don't understand the problems, the moderation is done by people who still are oblivious.

    50. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you need to make "the most possible amount of money" to survive on the email market. You can provide a sub-par service, say with lower storage capacity and less effective Spam filtering, who's main selling point is complete privacy. It won't be massively successful and most drones will still use gmail (hell, most can't be bothered to migrate from legacy yahoo and hotmail), but I think the platform could survive, especially since it will attract high revenue email power users.

      Also, there's a point of diminishing returns in data mining, you could probably get a fair share of gmail's revenue by simply looking at the geolocation of the user plus a broad lexical analyzer running on the user's machine on the decrypted version. It would classify your mail in a broad interest category such as 'pharmaceuticals', 'web hosting' etc. and fetch an add based on that. Without building a complete shadow profile of each user.

      As always, the problem with encrypted mail is the user friendliness, syncing your keys on multiple devices etc. People don't understand public key encryption and they never will. It needs to just work.

    51. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who didn't see this coming in the year 1861, when the government favored northern states over southern ones and waged war on its own people have their head in the sand and hasn't understood history.

      And if you are an American Indian, if you didn't see this coming in 1775 when the "freedom loving" Founding Fathers (who could somehow reconcile their claims of loving liberty while many of them owned slaves) decided to start their own country that they wouldn't use it as an excuse to take the lands you've been living on had their heads in the sand with no understanding of human nature.

    52. Re:land of the free... by Phrogman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well there haven't been enough foreign generated terrorist attacks on the US to use them as a justification for all this paranoia and rape of personal privacy. Therefore they have to concentrate on home grown terrorists - encouraging them where necessary to cross the line - to justify it all.
      At the moment the only thing offering us any privacy seems to be the limits placed by technology on maintaining the data and analyzing/searching it. The 1m sq foot data center in Utah and the 600k sq foot one in Maryland would seem to be the next step in resolving the issue of handling the volume.
      The thing that gets me is all these stories about the agreement with Verizon that leaked. That agreement is pretty much useless unless all the other cellphone and Internet providers have also made the same agreement, otherwise what happens with a Verizon customer calls a Bell customer? The NSA only gets half the data? I can't see them as able to accept that.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    53. Re:land of the free... by Sique · · Score: 1
      You've obviously not really understood what I am talking about.

      Most information is not stored for a long time. For instance, the current state of the stack of your browser process is not (except the browser crashes right now, and a memory dump lands on your hard drive). If we really want to know what all users all over the world are doing with their browsers at any given time, we would have to store the memory dumps of all the browsers all the time. Lets say, we want a granularity of 1 sec, and the memory footprint of the average browser is 100 MBytes. Per browser, that means 84600 * 100 MBytes per day, which amounts to 8 Terabytes per person per day, or 3 Petabyte per person per year. If we have 3 billion internet users, the memory dumps would already amount to 10^31 bytes. And that's just for a year. Currently, we can store about 10^12 byte per cubic centimeter, thus a completely dense storage of just the world's browser states for one year would take 10^19 cubic centimeters or (given we store it in silicon chips) weigh 25 trillion metric tons.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    54. Re:land of the free... by redog · · Score: 1

      That's surprising. It wouldn't bother me too much as long as they offer a business grade service. The thing is other ISP's started this already by disabling smtp and other upbound services on consumer grade internet. Both are shitty answers to an issue.

    55. Re:land of the free... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2
      If you only saw this coming 12 years ago you had your head in the sand or haven't read history.

      People have been saying this has been happening for years but the computational resources didn't allow the current scale until recently. Every incident where the government could expand it power and take away rights it took full advantage. Small incidents small ambiguous rights thaken that could be later expanded upon because of vague laws, big incidents here comes the PATRIOT ACT. We do have a tyrannical government but it isn't the hard tyranny one usually things of but the soft tyranny that works slowly. There is also the famous Sinclair Lewis quote which seem very appropriate especially given how things like this are always done for the most nationalistic reasons

      When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

      I don't know if this incident will be a tipping point or if too many people have bought the line of "if it keeps me safe from then it is ok" reasoning.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    56. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    57. Re:land of the free... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      You mean they don't mine data like below?

      SELECT ssn FROM usPopulation WHERE evidence like '%keyword1%' AND Evidence like '%keyword2%' AND ...

    58. Re:land of the free... by Spotu · · Score: 1

      So, two-step verification is definitely a benefit... but to whom? Many services are requiring a phone number verification for new accounts and are pushing existing users to add a phone number to their existing accounts. It just makes the cross-reference that much easier. I wonder how may have tried to set up a facebook account behind a VPN...but enter their real phone number?

    59. Re:land of the free... by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 2

      Google could charge a monthly fee for the service, or a "don't be evil" company could start a competitive service and try to eat Google's afternoon snack. The interesting thing about the computer industry has always been how rapidly product loyalties shift.

      Keep in mind that you'll get a better group of people choosing to use an encrypted service than those choosing to leave their laundry out for others to observe at will, so you could probably charge a premium if you decided to sell them non-targeted advertising crap as an additional source of revenue.

      The other aspect of this is that, if/when it turns out that the companies DO know and HAVE known about PRISM, user trust in corporate assertions is likely to decline substantially. Why base your business plan on cooperation with a known liar?

    60. Re:land of the free... by hackula · · Score: 1

      more like:

      select * from emails where text like '%Allah%'

    61. Re:land of the free... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Anyone who didn't see this coming 12 years ago had their head in the sand or hasn't read their history.

      Which includes many of those members of Congress who voted for the Patriot Act (the others, of course, are complicit). The ones that didn't back in 2001 include only 1 senator and 65 representatives. Of those, 3 were Republicans (yes, Ron Paul is among those illustrious few), 62 were Democrats, and lone socialist Bernie Sanders. When they voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006, things were only slightly better: 10 senators and 138 representatives opposed it, with a party split of 13 Republicans, 133 Democrats, and 2 independents.

      And that's why I haven't voted for a Republican for federal office since 2000: As a party, they've made it very very clear that to oppose the Patriot Act and its abuses is heresy. And in recent years, I've stopped supporting Democrats too, for the same reason.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    62. Re:land of the free... by chuckinator · · Score: 1

      You just outlined the fundamental hosting plan available to players of the Uplink game.

    63. Re:land of the free... by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      It isn't just that "you didn't see it coming", it is that most Americans are actually demanding that their politicians make them "safe from from terrorists" and are voting in people who quite clearly state that trampling all over your civil rights is great if it stops even one "terrorist". Who voted against the Patriot Act?

      I don't know when the average American became a coward, but it has happened. You won't even close gitmo because of fear of having "terrorists" in a jail on the mainland.

      You have no one to blame but yourselves. You voted the bastards in.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    64. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a big difference between "Google reads my mail" and "the NSA reads my mail". In the first case some machine learning algorithm maps me to a point in some high-dimensional space which represents my likelihood to like some ads. I get so see these ads. In the second case there probably also is some machine learning algorithm at work, the difference is that it represents my likelihood that I will be put on a (almost) permanent no-fly list, get a visit from the FBI in the middle of the night, get a "random" visit from the IRS and so on.

    65. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an idealistically naive post! As long as the IRS has the power to make life miserable for any US citizen or business, any CEO with a brain will always buckle under to whatever the all-powerful governemnt 'suggests' to be in the interests of national security. Financial power over any firm is complete power over that firm.

    66. Re:land of the free... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      But Dave Schroeder, the Navy Information Warfare Officer who posts here, is still naive enough to think that this issue isn't about taking citizens servers and the empowerment that they manifest away from them.

      I'm not sure that is correct. I believe it is more like he is paid to shill and present a government opinion no matter what arguments get presented. I have had numerous debates with this person on /., and all result in him ignoring facts and maintaining a pro-current-regime opinion.

      In other words, he gets paid for dumping propaganda. Naivety has nothing to do with it.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    67. Re:land of the free... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Google tells you up front that they read your e-mail, so why wouldn't you expect that they also hand over stuff to NSA?

      What? No way should anyone have the expectation that a company telling you "we read your email to determine ads" equates to "we hand all of your data to the Government".

      I'm not saying you are smart if you don't realize it could happen, hell people have warned about that exact scenario since gmail (or hotmail or yahoo mail etc...) came out. Seeing that it does happen is another thing all together, since it's ILLEGAL for the US Government to spy on US Citizens without a Warrant!

      As someone else mentioned, this information should outrage you and everyone you tell the story too. It should cause people to start filing suits against the US Government and demanding criminal trials of heads and members of NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, and any politician that knew it was happening or approved it happening.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    68. Re:land of the free... by dean.collins · · Score: 1

      Meet the new King....same as the old King - http://fabzing.com/watch/?s=wgZYcnJr #PRISM

    69. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google could charge a monthly fee for the service

      Charging a monthly service would drive away all but the most security-paranoid users, thus losing Google the money they spent on implementing the encryption. On the upside, they'd keep their normal gmail ad money.

    70. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we are not living in totalitarian times - we are living in the times that precede and set the stage for the totalitarian times coming

    71. Re:land of the free... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Proving my point. Thank you.

      Because I don't have to store everything, and certainly not browser dumps for every browser. All I'd need is to store is timestamps, requests made, and a processed response. Let's take this slashdot story for instance. Perhaps 100K people read it today, we only need 1 copy of the story (the "final" archived one is fine) along with request/response history. That's a whole lot less than 100K * this page size * # of views (since that would most likely be larger than 1 for a percentage of the readers. Now consider that most web browsing is exactly this type of activity, and all of a sudden storing all that activity doesn't seem all that insurmountable.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    72. Re:land of the free... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Foreignness" just seems wrong here. The rights given in the US constititution extend to non-citizens. There's nothing magical that says the government can do anything they want as long as the victim is foreign. This excuse is only being given for political reasons, since most Americans don't care or are actually convinced that foreigners in general are enemies.

    73. Re:land of the free... by Sique · · Score: 1
      You still don't get me (and you don't get the gist of the post I was replying to in the first place).

      Let me try to explain it again. Slowly.

      And just for sh!tz and Googles, how many generations of hardware and/or software away before deep data tools will be able to provide the Government with anything they want to know about anyone they want to know it?

      That's what I was talking about. It was a glimpse of a potential future, where really everything about us is stored, and not just timestamps of communication events. There is a hard limit of what can be stored about us. It's 10^91. There are no more bits storable in the whole universe. And I was trying to show how easy those 10^91 can be filled. Yes, a static image of a slashdot discussion at the point when no replys are allowed anymore gives a good account of the discussion itself, and who was replying what to whom. But that's not the whole story. That's a very small part of the story. It doesn't tell you anything about which articles I was reading, because there is no record of my readings. There is no record of which threads I was following thoroughly, and which ones I just scanned shortly. There is no record of posts I was starting, and cancelling. There is no record of the sites I was browsing for references.

      I had a discussion with my son recently, where he asked me if what would happen when all possible designs for road signs are used. I told him that it is impossible to exhaust the possible space for road signs. My argument was as follows: Let road signs be designs in a 100x100 black and white pixel format. That means we have 2 to the power of 10,000 possible designs for road signs. That's about 10^3,000. If it was possible to create a version of such a road sign in a single elementary particle, we still would need 10^300 universes to just have one instance of each possible road sign design produced. Thus we will never exhaust the space of possible road signs. We can't make enough of them.

      Your argument is akin to argue, that it is possible to print all currently used road signs in a single book. I know that's possible. But that's not what I was talking about.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    74. Re:land of the free... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And you still don't get it - you don't have to store everything when there's tons of duplicity in what's being downloaded. Also, given how many things work, especially in the HTML5 world, you can know a lot from just the server side. Unless you're one of those people that need to count every ant in the pile before stating there's a million ants down there, each one in their own little square.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    75. Re: land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it because we let them.

    76. Re:land of the free... by Sique · · Score: 1
      Of course compression is possible. But that's not the point. The point is that we produce more data each day than we will ever be able to store. It's simply impossible to recreate a whole day on Earth just from the data points we have stored. We simply have not enough storage space for all those data points. There is much more "dark data" than represented by single server logs. And even those can get large quite easy. I am administering for instance some servers who control the consoles for phone attendants. If I turn the logging up to "debug", they easily produce one GByte of logfiles each day. And that's only 10 attendants working. If we monitor the whole phone switch of maybe 1000 users, it's between 10 and 15 GBytes per day, thus we do extended logging for bug hunting only with an external harddrive attached. Yes, those logfiles compress fine, factors between 10 and 25 are easy. And we don't store any contents, just the metadata. And it's a client-server-setup, we have a single instance which actually sees the metadata of all communication within its sphere (not the actual payload, but that's another aspect).

      It is so easy to pose questions whose answers need really large amounts of storage. Which IP addresses were online at what point in time? To answer that, we would need a bitmap of all (used) IP addresses and all time points, where 1 means "was online at time t" and 0 "was not online". If we estimate the number of actual used IP addresses as 2^30, and we want a granularity of one second, we have 86400 x 2^30 (or about 10^9) bits per day. Of course this data is easily compressible, we might reach factors up to 100 on that. But after that we still have one terabyte of data per day just for this single and simple question. And we don't even look for communication patterns other than being on- or offline.

      Or imagine a town of 10x10 miles, with about on average 10,000 cars driving around simultanously. It might be built as a road network of ten crossings per road mile, making it a 100x100 network of roads, and the average trip length being 10 miles for each car, taking 1 hr. Each car thus produces 100 datapoints per hour, if we just log the blocks it is driving along, making it 24,000,000 for a day in the town.

      The DE-CIX, the largest internet exchange point in the world, passes on average 1,2 TBit/s of Internet traffic. If we log that and if we are able to compress it by a factor of 10, its logfiles would fill 10 Petabyte per day. The second largest, AMS-IX, comes close with an average of about 1 Tbit/s, another 8 Petabytes per day after compression. LINX has 0,9 Tbit/s, DataIX another 0,8 Tbit/s on average. And that's just Europe. And just public Internet peering. It doesn't account for any private peering. It doesn't account for any phone data except for VoIP links going over public exchange points. It doesn't account for any mobile provider data. It doesn't account for any data that normally would never leave local systems like billing data.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    77. Re:land of the free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Besides, all they need to do is raid the full discussion from the recipient's mail provider which probably won't be encrypted. Maybe it's time to just stop using email and migrate to something that's not so antiquated.

    78. Re:land of the free... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      These technical limitations are the only thing keeping some semblance of practical privacy... for now.

      Throughout all of time, technical limitations were the only things guaranteeing our liberty and privacy from any/all governments.

      As a rule, the only limit to the amount of control an entity will exert will be exclusively defined by technical limitations. Legal, moral, and psychological limitations will all be bypassed sooner or later.

      Hard resets of government power need to be enshrined permanently in all "constitutions"... In theory, the second Amendment is the hard reset enshrined in our Constitution; however, that should only be a failsafe, not an actual reset mechanism.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  2. The EU is going to be PISSED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep, they will be pissed at this news. (no not pissed in the drunk sense, idiot.)

    1. Re:The EU is going to be PISSED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah nobody likes competition :P (the EU Data Storage Directive in case you don't know what some of it is called over here. Amateurish in comparison but everyone has to start somewhere right?). And of course the EU and the US trade a lot of this stuff because they can outsource even more illegal stuff that way (EU sources in the US and US sources in the EU).

      Did Machiavelli dedicate a chapter to the binary propensities of the human mind? It sure crops up a lot, even muslims love playing good cop/bad cop.

  3. Money quote... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ....from last paragraph:

    Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

    1. Re:Money quote... by SolarCanine · · Score: 0

      “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

      I'm pretty sure I'd notice a keylogger on my network sending every keystroke out to elsewhere... As for the leap from idea to typing, that technology is the sole purview of the NSA it seems...

    2. Re:Money quote... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Your keystrokes don't go "elsewhere". It's just as easy to catch them at the other end, or in the middle, as the case may be.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Money quote... by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not if the text box you're typing into is running an inserted javascript routine that tracks keystrokes..

    4. Re:Money quote... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

      I'm pretty sure I'd notice a keylogger on my network sending every keystroke out to elsewhere...

      As for the leap from idea to typing, that technology is the sole purview of the NSA it seems...

      Oh, so you've turned off auto-complete predictions in Chrome's address bar, and never use any cloud based apps like Google Docs that send keystrokes to the cloud? Though you might not notice a good keylogger that could queue up data and send it periodically as innocent looking DNS queires, ajax queries, etc.

      Regardless, one needn't watch keystrokes to watch ideas form as you type - that statement is just as true if they watch you type facebook posts, slashdot comments, IM's, etc in real time.

    5. Re:Money quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't quite watch ideas as you type, but the people smart about keylogging temporarily store the logs on your hard drive and then send them out as a compressed and encrypted bulk transfer when you're doing something that requires more bandwidth (Youtube, Netflix, Dropbox sync, music etc.). Even most system admins and security professionals won't notice a couple of extra megs being transferred this way.

    6. Re:Money quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they can do it if they are interested in you, for example it has been showen that you can reliably find the keys pressed by measuring peaks on the electric net from outside the house.

      That said, you sound kinda as if a guy just had an accident and lost the ability to use his legs, yet you argue that he could move them with his hands, thus having not really lost the ability to use them. THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT. The point here is they can and are watching everything. If they aren't watching a certain thing its probably because they either forgot about it or were too busy with watching all the more important stuff.

      They got tons of stuff on you, pretty much everything, and sure, maybe they didn't get every single keystroke, but big fucking whoop, they have nearly everything.

    7. Re:Money quote... by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Or as part of an antivirus update. Hell antivirus programs probably spy quite a bit.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    8. Re:Money quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being idiotically literal about the comment doesn't make you look smart, you know.

    9. Re:Money quote... by SolarCanine · · Score: 0

      That's kind of the point of pointing out the use of the phrase "quite literally" in the first place, you know.

    10. Re:Money quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Never heard of autocomplete?

    11. Re:Money quote... by hutsell · · Score: 3

      ....from last paragraph:

      Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

      Temporarily putting aside any discussion about cynicism or idealism and how one feels about the effectiveness of petitions, if you decide to sign into the preceding petition (and unconcerned about the negative aspects of possibly being added to a "watch list") you'll be given the ability to (/.ing it, in a sense) by resubmitting a formatted response in 3 different ways.

      Via Twitter:

      Using the Patriot Act, the govt has been secretly tracking the calls of every #Verizon Business customer.Act now: http://bit.ly/13IoqhD #NSA

      Facebook:

      Using the Patriot Act, the government has been secretly tracking the calls of millions of Americans. Yes, really. Act now.

      and your Email:

      A leaked court document obtained by The Guardian, and since reported on by numerous news outlets, has exposed the government spying on Americans. Using the Patriot Act, the U.S. government has been secretly tracking the calls of every Verizon Business Network Services customer – whom they talked to, from where, and for how long – for the past 41 days.

      It's time to get angry. Be part of a strong public outcry against this program by signing the petition immediately and letting your friends know what's happening in this country. https://www.aclu.org/secure/stop-massive-spying-program?Ms=taf_acluaction_NSA_130606

      --
      Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
    12. Re:Money quote... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the use of turning off an option in a browser made by a company that acts hand in glove with its domestic intelligence agency? How can anyone trust one checkbox in Chrome after this?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    13. Re:Money quote... by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

      I'm pretty sure I'd notice a keylogger on my network sending every keystroke out to elsewhere...

      As for the leap from idea to typing, that technology is the sole purview of the NSA it seems...

      If you're talking about what you're typing into a search engine's text box, then yeah, the implementations/configurations of most users send keystroke by keystroke for autocomplete/suggest purposes. How about word processing...ever heard of Google Docs? Yeah, a lot of people use it, and yeah, it sends keystroke by keystroke.

      Okay, maybe not literally as you type as there is sure to be some latency between idea and keyboard and a little more between keyboard and Google, but close enough. And of course, he didn't say all of your ideas, this would would be the case for ideas that you form while you're typing, and for typing then sends everything you type somewhere they're watching.

    14. Re:Money quote... by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      What the hell? Signing the ACLU petition puts you on their spam list, with no check box to opt out.

    15. Re:Money quote... by tftp · · Score: 0

      Never heard of autocomplete?

      Everyone who is even partially sane disables these "services." As result, the watchers can only monitor those who are content to being watched.

    16. Re:Money quote... by tftp · · Score: 1

      not if the text box you're typing into is running an inserted javascript routine that tracks keystrokes..

      NoScript is your friend. Most web sites do not require JS. Those that do can be dealt with separately - and not trusted.

    17. Re:Money quote... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      What's the use of turning off an option in a browser made by a company that acts hand in glove with its domestic intelligence agency? How can anyone trust one checkbox in Chrome after this?

      Build from source if you're paranoid: http://www.chromium.org/Home

    18. Re:Money quote... by citizenr · · Score: 1

      type a search term into google, one letter at a time, watch network traffic

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    19. Re:Money quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that MS and Apple are on the same list and Mozilla Corp. HQ is right there in Mountain View, CA too - go, Opera! Now is your chance!

    20. Re:Money quote... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No key logger needed, just you using a web browser that does URL or search suggestions as you type in the URL or search box.

      So unless you like your browser to behave like its 1999, they know a lot more than you realize.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    21. Re:Money quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: This isn't twitter, there is no valid reason to use a link shortener (except in your sig). The only reason for a link shortener is to trick someone into seeing goatse or tubgirl or sending them to spam or other malware.

      So, that shortened link there, what virus will it infeect this computer with?

      *shakes head sadly*

  4. I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Internet needs to be policed. There are bad men and evildoers actively plotting to do us harm. These nefarious activities now are increasingly being planned and coordinated using the Internet. I don't think this is so bad that the authorities are mining and searching and seeking out these dastardly terrorists.

    My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites. I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer. Just my two cents, I know its not the majority viewpoint in this current uproar.

    1. Re:I'm Okay With It by SolarCanine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites.

      ...says the anonymous coward? Am I missing some Soviet Russia joke here?

    2. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest your life and your family's life are probably not important at all. There are plenty of drones. You are replaceable. You are not unique.

    3. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we British colonists should have just paid the tea tax then.

    4. Re:I'm Okay With It by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You are replaceable. You are not unique.

      You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.....

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:I'm Okay With It by brucek2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its a good thing your ancestors had a little more guts and a lot more principal. They were willing to die, if necessary, first to free America from being ruled by Kings and then to fight other countries who wished to force their ideologies onto the rest of the world.

      Meanwhile, all that most of us from this generation had to do was not screw it up. Which it looks like we are. Hopefully these disclosures will remind everyone that the reason we have a national security apparatus is to protect our liberty.

    6. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to install a webcam in your house then so we can all watch what you do 24/7.

      Along with your social security number, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers and address.

      Oh, what's that? You don't want that? That's what privacy is. Keeping info from going where you don't want.

      http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

      You went anon for a good reason, and if you want to know why read that.

    7. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are replaceable. You are not unique.

      You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.....

      And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore STFU. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a nightmare broken sham of a world. Strive to be happy. But don't expect that to work.

    8. Re:I'm Okay With It by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Internet needs to be policed. There are bad men and evildoers actively plotting to do us harm. These nefarious activities now are increasingly being planned and coordinated using the Internet. I don't think this is so bad that the authorities are mining and searching and seeking out these dastardly terrorists.

      Are you sure you're ok with the US Government scrutinizing your private life?

      Right now there are so many laws and regulations in the USA that not even the US Government can tell you how many there are (criminal law alone is 23,000 pages across 50 volumes, and that doesn't include thousands of federal regulations that you're expected to abide by). Every day you probably break dozens of laws without knowing it.

      How will you feel if the government starts mining your data and issuing violations automatically: "Citizen: on June 3, 2013 you told your aunt that you fixed your backyard fence. We found no record of a proper building permit, therefore you must tear down your fence and build it again" "Citizen: On September 9, 2013 your daughter said she planted a dandelion in front of your house. That plant has been determined to be a noxious weed, we will be sending a drone to eradicate your front yard". "Citizen: In Jan 10th, 2003 you had lunch with a Tea Party leader. The Tea Party has been determined to be a terrorist organization. Come quietly and we'll go easy on your family".

      Even if you trust the current administration with the data, do you trust all future administrations since the data will likely be retained beyond your lifetime? How would you feel if they selling profiles about yourself to private corporations? (first to the credit rating agencies, then maybe to insurance companies, then to anyone that wants to buy a profile on you).

      My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites. I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer. Just my two cents, I know its not the majority viewpoint in this current uproar.

      Why do you assume that you have to give up all privacy to ensure the safety of your family? Do you think terrorism is something new that can only be stopped by scrutinizing the personal lives of everyone?

      If you're so open with your privacy, why post as Anonymous Coward? Why not post your Facebook Profile, LinkedIn Profile, Twitter name, etc here for us all to see? What are you trying to hide?

    9. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That AC is severely lacking in foresight, this AC prefers the words of General John Stark that so well expressed the view of many: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

    10. Re:I'm Okay With It by dyfet · · Score: 4, Funny

      My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites.

      ...says the anonymous coward? Am I missing some Soviet Russia joke here?

      Just to please you... In NSA America social networks join you!

    11. Re:I'm Okay With It by buswolley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are so many laws, one breaks one or two everyday without realization. With so many laws there can be no equality before the law, because law enforcement can arbitrarily select whether it will enforce a law or not on whomever it pleases.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    12. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC mission accomplished, since you just wasted several minutes replying to an obvious troll...

    13. Re:I'm Okay With It by White+Flame · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forget the "bad guys" for a second. Your entire life and those of your family and friends is being monitored in detail regarding daily activities to attempt to incriminate you for being a child pornographer or terrorist. Any little off-color humor, flippant statements, random private discussions, outbursts, travel plans, purchasing decisions, etc, all can contribute to increasing that terrorist/child porn indicator for your personal life, regardless of your actual innocence, with no human judgment involved.

      This is complete insanity, and it is the implicit condemnation of every single US citizen as being a terrorism suspect. You are complicit in subjecting yourself as a suspected terrorist, instead of demanding to live your life as a regular, upstanding citizen with no charges held against you.

      I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer.

      Sure, you "feel" safer. But you are not safer. You are a suspect now, and are more at risk of having your life destroyed by the authorities, regardless of innocence, than before.

    14. Re:I'm Okay With It by Pulzar · · Score: 0

      Every day you probably break dozens of laws without knowing it.

      I call BS on that. Give us some examples of dozens of laws that a normal person might break every day.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    15. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, most of "this generation" isn't in places of power yet. The people in power are mostly 50-70 years old. They got theirs, and they're screwing it up on the way out.

    16. Re:I'm Okay With It by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      Does it count if I break the same law a dozen times?

    17. Re:I'm Okay With It by howardd21 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hopefully these disclosures will remind everyone that the reason we have a national security apparatus is to protect our liberty.

      Best comment here...by far.

      --
      no comment
    18. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you give to the DNC and call a Republican a racist? If not, thats at least two current laws you broke today.

    19. Re:I'm Okay With It by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I genuinely believe that there is NO threat, no matter HOW big that can EVER justify wholesale surveillance of the communications of innocent civilians. If they have evidence that a particular individual (or a YouTube account or Gmail account or Facebook account or phone number of other individually identifiable entity) has done something illegal or is planning to do something illegal then they should be able to get a warrant (even a secret warrant so that the bad guys can't find out their data has been snooped on) for the specific data matching that individual.
      I do NOT support wholesale data retention either (again, if they have an individual, get a warrant requiring the entity in question to retain data about that individual)
      Nor do I support the idea of requiring back doors in software programs so that the FBI/CIA/NSA/Scotland Yard/Bundespolizei/AFP/MI6/ASIO/etc/etc can listen in on secret conversations (even if those conversations may be being carried out by criminals or terrorists)

    20. Re:I'm Okay With It by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every day you probably break dozens of laws without knowing it.

      I call BS on that. Give us some examples of dozens of laws that a normal person might break every day.

      Some obvious ones are:

      1. Exceeding the speed limit, even by a small amount, even only for a second
      2. Turning without using signals
      3. Not stopping before the limit line painted on intersections
      4. Jaywalking between intersections or stepping into an intersection before the walk signal is on, or after "don't walk" has started flashing even if you know you'll clear the intersection before the don't walk signal is on
      5. Connecting to an open Wifi network without permission of the owner
      6. Playing music loudly enough for others to hear (that's a public performance and needs to be licensed)
      7. Signing on a website with a fake identity and/or various TOS violations
      8. Private gambling (office football pools, betting a friend that you can run down the block faster than him, etc)
      9. Riding transit with a "wide" marker (sometimes only if you're underage)
      10. Possessing "child erotica" - scantily clothed children (i.e. a Sears catalog showing children in bathing suits)
      11. Letting oil from your car drip on your driveway and wash into the storm drains
      12. letting trash accidentally blow from your car (or fall from your pocket), even pocket lint or an apple seed
      13. Eating or drinking while driving or other distracting activity
      14. Taking a pen or paperclip from the office for use at home
      15. Finding a penny on the ground and keeping it instead of turning it in
      16. Drinking alcohol outside of your home in some jurisdictions
      17. Moving prescription medications from the prescription bottle to another bottle or container

      And those are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

      There are somewhere between 10,000 and 300,000 federal regulations that you can violate, no one can possibly know them all.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

      "There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

    21. Re:I'm Okay With It by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      But it is trolls that that that produce very informative comments that are extremely enlightening. I don't mind the trolls. Especially when the results are so astoundingly good. I'm a firm believer in freedom. But being able to read through some of these counterpoints really reinforces my beliefs to the max. It is great to hear it from other people, get their own perspectives, and see their sources.

      In fact this is the WONDERFULL thing about the internet and why NOTHING should be censored. Because even the bad and worst can bring out the absolute best response when you take shear violence and physicality out of the equation.

    22. Re:I'm Okay With It by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      *But it is trolls like this (I think the NSA did the that that that part).

    23. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites.

      ...says the anonymous coward? Am I missing some Soviet Russia joke here?

      It's okay, it doesn't matter, they know who we are.

    24. Re:I'm Okay With It by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      In other news: Former stasi agents sue US government for refusing to give them work stating "we don't hire amateurs".

    25. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please elaborate on 9.

    26. Re:I'm Okay With It by hawguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please elaborate on 9.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/jon_gilbert/1085416756/

      WARNING.
      It is unlawful for any person under 18
      years of age to have in this vehicle any
      spray paint container or any permanent
      marker with a tip one-half inch or larger.

    27. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Numbero uno...I got no facebook profile, no linkedin profile, no twitter account.
      numbero duece...I don't have worries about about the government knowing everything I do and everything I think. I bleed red. white and blue. I do have a problem with Korporate Amarika knowing all my actions and thoughts.
      If you are afraid of the government...then you are either a tool of the corporation or a fool.

    28. Re:I'm Okay With It by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Most of what you listed aren't federal crimes.

    29. Re:I'm Okay With It by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Most of what you listed aren't federal crimes.

      They aren't pink unicorns either, but I didn't claim that they were.

    30. Re:I'm Okay With It by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the NSA farm that that that out to the Department of Redundancy Department?

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    31. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is two things.

      1. why should someone log in to have to leave a comment? Yes he posted as AC, and he left a loaded statement like "I do not care about privacy".

      2. he actually believes this terrorist BS, yes, there are groups of terrorists, they've existed through out time, but to say there is a network that consist of thousands (hundreds of thousands) and they use the internet to collect information and to coordinate planned attacks is simply BS.

      And they are very aware they are being monitored so they are not just go about it blatantly! They have the presence of mind to code or crypt even use other tools to hide who they are, and what there up to. Again this is an attempt just like communism and whatever other load of crap the US government can use to clamp down and have full control over its citizens.

      You can say what you want about sci-fi movies, and I could list about 30 of them that foresaw this very thing happening, as well as the arrogance of a countries citizens to allow this to happen, why? because they are naive enough to believe Uncle Sam instead of questioning there governments motives. And a lot of the arrogance stems from the press/media who fail consistently at reporting anything that questions the motives of a government to mislead its people. The only time they bother is when it gets leaked out 10 years after the fact, then they decide to blow it up, by then the laws and agencies to uphold them are cemented in place.

      I would go one step further and laugh out loud that the backwards retards in the republican states seem the most arrogant, they have no problem giving up there right to privacy over a suspected motive such a terrorism. City folks or everyday working folks are to busy to really give a sh** about anything.

      The obvious problem everyone on /. (well almost everyone) is concerned with is how this allows them to bust you for anything regardless of whether it falls under terrorism, they will charge you with terrorism adn get a conviction even tho you have nothing to do with anything. Which has been going on since 9/11, and is far worse then the press or media wants to report.

    32. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet needs to be policed. There are bad men and evildoers actively plotting to do us harm. These nefarious activities now are increasingly being planned and coordinated using the Internet. I don't think this is so bad that the authorities are mining and searching and seeking out these dastardly terrorists.

      My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites. I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer. Just my two cents, I know its not the majority viewpoint in this current uproar.

      "Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both."

      The world is not a safe place. Whether the threat is from terrorists or your toothbrush made in China, it doesn't matter. Living in fear is not what our forebears wanted for us. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These government actions go against those principles, and if we do not stop it now it will end with us meekly accept the scraps of whatever putrid food our overlords deign, in their benevolence, to provide to us while praying to whatever deity we worship that they take the person next to you instead of yourself. /rant

      captcha word: remorse. I imagine you will be feeling a lot of that.

    33. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's illegal to accelerate on any street in Colorado

    34. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet needs to be policed. There are bad men and evildoers actively plotting to do us harm. These nefarious activities now are increasingly being planned and coordinated using the Internet. I don't think this is so bad that the authorities are mining and searching and seeking out these dastardly terrorists.

      My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites. I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer. Just my two cents, I know its not the majority viewpoint in this current uproar.

      I completely agree with you, although I used a different approach. The real world, as internet, is full of bad men end evildoers actively plotting to do me harm. Thiefs, rapists, murderers,... I want to avoid any contact with them. However, because I barely use internet, I decided time ago to build a massive wall around my house. Furthermore, I live full-time within these walls just to avoid any contact with potential bad men and evildoers out there (as I completely ignore who they are). Just to make me feel safer.

      As an additional step, because I am not an evildoer therefore I have nothing to hide, I try to post and store in facebook and Google+ as many moments of my -very lonely- life as I can. Just to let the competent authorities know that I am not a treat.

      I highly recommend you to do the same, dear fellow. You might feel safe from evildoers and bad men that are thousands of miles away... but you are still at a hand of evildoers and bad men that are few yards from you!!

    35. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then to fight other countries who wished to force their ideologies onto the rest of the world.

      Well, what if the country doing said forcing IS America?

      Because that has been the case since at least WWII. With all the meddling with foreign governments, rigging elections, putting up fake leaders by the dozen...

    36. Re:I'm Okay With It by anagama · · Score: 2

      http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx

      Doesn't change the fact that the Federal code base is so vast and so vague that the average citizen commits three Federal Felonies per day. Throw in laws that are secret and you're fucked if they want you. How do you even try to follow a secret law? Talk about a tool of tyranny.

      Headline: "Intelligence Director declassifies law to explain massive phone, Internet surveillance"

      http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/06/3437545/white-house-defends-collection.html

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    37. Re:I'm Okay With It by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod this insightful.
      Not because I agree with the statements but even if the poster does actually believe this (seems unlikely) it still seems to be a very common belief held by people. How many times have you heard someone in the general populous state something along the lines of "Well if it keeps me safe from X". I only wonder if this incident will be enough to change the thinking of the general populous on things like this but I doubt it. On the way into work I heard on the radio news that this activity had prevented 1 terrorist attack within the US so it sounds like damage control is already out in force on this. A better question is let's assume the terrorist attack was a bad as any have been in the US (~3,000 dead) is there a better way we could have spent that money to prevent as many or more lives? Let's not even assume that in all likelihood that if the terrorist attack had happened the number killed would have likely been 2 or 3 orders of magnitude less, yes I do mean likely it might have killed between 3 and 30 people, which would make the number look even worse.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    38. Re:I'm Okay With It by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      LOL if you click "next" you can look at someone's pictures of wife and children.

    39. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha! You just figured out what the spooks are doing. This is all about ridding the Internet of all the "In Soviet Russia" jokes. They intend to replace them with "In NSA Amerika" jokes.

      I, too, am now officially OK with all this.

    40. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point would be much more convincing if it weren't obscured by your abuse of English.

    41. Re:I'm Okay With It by BubbaDave · · Score: 1

      The Internet needs to be policed. There are bad men and evildoers actively plotting to do us harm. These nefarious activities now are increasingly being planned and coordinated using the Internet. I don't think this is so bad that the authorities are mining and searching and seeking out these dastardly terrorists.

      My life and my family's lives are more important than whatever privacy I had on these sites. I know Apple, Google, Facebook have the data anyway, so I see know harm on giving this up so that I feel safer. Just my two cents, I know its not the majority viewpoint in this current uproar.

      Your children will curse you to their dying breath.

    42. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That AC is severely lacking in foresight, this AC prefers the words of General John Stark that so well expressed the view of many: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

      Stark, eh? Didn't he get his head chopped off for that?

    43. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those are federal laws. Your city government isn't snooping on you, the feds are.

    44. Re:I'm Okay With It by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      That said, most of "this generation" isn't in places of power yet. The people in power are mostly 50-70 years old. They got theirs, and they're screwing it up on the way out.

      Trouble is, this generation, is so used to not only not valuing privacy, but happily handing over most any personal information at the drop of a hat, I don't hold much hope that the next generation will lift a finger to change the situation for something they don't seem to prize right now.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    45. Re:I'm Okay With It by hawguy · · Score: 1

      LOL if you click "next" you can look at someone's pictures of wife and children.

      Yeah, some people are less concerned with privacy than others, and leave their family photo albums open to the world.

    46. Re:I'm Okay With It by hawguy · · Score: 1

      None of those are federal laws. Your city government isn't snooping on you, the feds are.

      Is there really any difference? If "they" want you brought in for questioning, they only need the tiniest justification. "Your honor, I stopped the suspect for jaywalking, and then while I was writing a citiation and asked for ID, he became belligerent and hostile toward me, so I had no choice but to tazer him and book him for resisting arrest. When I ran his fingerprints and DNA, the FBI came in and said they wanted him held for further questioning based on some suspicious phone calls he made back in 2003.".

    47. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are bad men and evildoers actively plotting to do us harm.

      Ya, those sitting somewhere in Fort Meade.

    48. Re:I'm Okay With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply to drop my child's lunch off at a elementary school a hundred yards away from my home, I usually violate four or five laws:

      1) I ride a bicycle without a helmet
      2) I ride on the wrong side of the street for a few moments
      3) I do not come to a full stop at the stop sign before I turn the corner
      4) I do not come to a full stop at the stop sign before i cross the street
      5) I ride against the traffic arrow as I enter the school grounds
      6) I ride my bicycle on the sidewalk
      7) I park my bicycle in a no parking zone

      And that's just one way, in about thirty seconds.

      Take me away!

  5. Hum... by komus59 · · Score: 1

    i'm not very surprised !

  6. and tap into the biggest tech company.... Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right? Who's with me.... *crickets*

  7. Ya don't call them by houbou · · Score: 1

    Big Brother for nothing.

  8. Tinfoil hat brigade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tinfoil hat brigade says "we did tell you so"

    1. Re:Tinfoil hat brigade by undeadbill · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat brigade says "we did tell you so"

      Still preferable to being considered a coincidence theorist. ;)

    2. Re:Tinfoil hat brigade by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new overlords but am looking to purchase shares in GNUPG ASAP OK?

    3. Re:Tinfoil hat brigade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they were right.

      We should listen to the Tin Foil Hat Brigade a bit more often.

  9. Bye bye Dropbox? by scottbomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Dropbox, the cloud storage and synchronization service, is described as “coming soon.”

    I'm very dependent on Dropbox but I just might have to cancel it. As I type this, I'm already cancelling GoogleDrive, and MS SkyDrive.

    1. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      I've heard good things about SpiderOak. Can't say that I've ever used it myself, though.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember, there's some pesky things around using the web interface - as soon as you do, admins at their end could technically decrypt your content. But you trust them too right?

    3. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything valuable on Dropbox (or any server you don't own) ought to be encrypted. I'm not saying spying is okay, mind you, but even if the NSA weren't poking around in your files, someone else might be.

    4. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Randall311 · · Score: 1

      Cloud storage is fine as long as you encrypt your data before you upload it. Most people won't bother because that's too much of a pain in the ass. That's what they're counting on. That's why it's "free".

    5. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by undeadbill · · Score: 2

      Better off with a $200 fanless home micro server running OwnCloud.

      Or running an OwnCloud instance on Linode or AWS and encrypting both the endpoint files as well as using SSH keys for transmittal, if you really don't want to be bothered with having something that requires a subpoena to access.

    6. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Makes sense, since Dropbox has hired new people to improve their security beyond the point where it is a complete joke it means backend access will be required instead of cracking in.
      Personally I think if it's something you wouldn't want your worst enemy to read in a newspaper it shouldn't be on Dropbox anyway.

    7. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Put an encrypted disk image on Dropbox. Them just use it as you normally would.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    8. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by grub · · Score: 1

      Check out SpiderOak! I've been a happy customer for some time. Solid encryption, zero-knowledge cloud storage.

      I dropped DropBox a long time ago other than for moving things around that only support DropBox.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    9. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Check out ecryptfs. It's a little weird to setup but works great with dropbox.

    10. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of money. DD-WRT router with a VPN configured and a USB hard drive hooked up to the USB port. Secure, half the price, can double as secure web browsing from networks you don't control.

      I'm looking into setting up my Raspberry Pi as a wireless hotspot connecting to this VPN so I can share it with friends / family while out on holiday.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you are just making a political statement. But, if you were at all pragmatic, and wanted to solve the problem, just use EncFS (open source and available for all platforms) to encrypt your Dropbox or Skydrive folder:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncFS

      This system is fantastic and very lightweight / transparent for the user. Moreover, because it is file-based rather than volume-based it works well with Google Drive and other non-delta file sync utilities.

      If you need an EncFS client for iOS or Android, look into BoxCryptor classic: https://www.boxcryptor.com/en/boxcryptor-classic

    12. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have an old machine that can run Linux Mint (or other distributions), set up OwnCloud on your own machine, and enable encryption. It's open source, including the sync clients.

    13. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      SpiderOak is good, client-side encryption. If you don't use the web interface, they cannot decrypt your files. It supports Windows, Mac and Linux well, which I need as we don't really use Windows at home. I had a few problems with it at one point, but their support resolved them quickly and they gave me a few free months in compensation. Cost isn't as cheap as some, but it's not bad unless you want to store terabytes of data. You can backup multiple machines on one plan, and sync between machines automatically. You can also share files with others who aren't on the SpiderOak service.

      The most interesting thing about it is they do some kind of de-duplication even though the data is encrypted. Questions have been asked about whether this means there's no semantic security, but I haven't found a satisfactory answer to this yet.

      Anyway, it's recommended by me (& my family).

    14. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copy is a service similar to Dropbox, but they give you more space. Copy gives you 15GB space free, and 20GB if you click on a referral link like this one https://copy.com?r=FJ0ixF

    15. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      It seems to use client-side encryption, but it appears that they store the key on their systems (maybe only secured with your password?).

      To illustrate:
      I installed SpiderOak on one computer, supplied my username and password and put some files in it. I then installed it on another computer, supplied my username and password and was able to see the files put in place by the first computer. So it appears that access to your data is only secured by however many bits of entropy are present in your password alone. This password is also used for access to their web server, so it is not a particularly well guarded secret.

      This isn't even getting into the fact that sharing files with others or accessing your files through the web app gives them complete access to your key. I wanted to like SpiderOak, but it doesn't appear to actually be secure.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    16. Re: Bye bye Dropbox? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      Well, it doesn't follow that they store the key on the servers. I assume that a password based key derivation function is used. It is clearly true however that your key is only as strong as the password you choose.

    17. Re: Bye bye Dropbox? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Well, it doesn't follow that they store the key on the servers. I assume that a password based key derivation function is used. It is clearly true however that your key is only as strong as the password you choose.

      It doesn't have to follow, but I was hoping it did! Them storing the key is the best of all of the possible scenarios that I can see.

      Predictably deriving a key from a password (that has no minimum length requirements and a maximum length of 255 characters ASCII) is terribly bad practice. The derived key will, of course, provide no more entropy than the original password (which tops out at ~1200 bits in this case). Opening an account with them and using a password of "1" gives the response "Password looks good!" As this password seems to be the entire foundation on which their security is built, it does not bode well for their other design decisions.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    18. Re:Bye bye Dropbox? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But wasn't it obvious from day zero that the cloud was inherently going to be unsafe? I find it strange enough that people use even one of these services, much less all of them.

  10. Any chance this will cause real outrage? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Is there any chance that this and the Verizon metadata will cause real outrage, by which I mean by enough citizens to have some political effect? I honestly don't know, but at least some part of me hopes it will. Please discuss. I know much of the "discussion" will be the usual rants, but some folks might add real thought or insight.

    1. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Is there any chance that this and the Verizon metadata will cause real outrage, by which I mean by enough citizens to have some political effect?

      No. Well, yes, it'll cause outrage, but to no avail. While these were both started by Bush, they're perpetuated and strengthened under 0bama ("meet the new boss...same as the old boss."). This is Yet Another Argument for a third political party, one that's not (yet) owned by the special interests and the other maintainers of the status quo.

    2. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there any chance that this and the Verizon metadata will cause real outrage, by which I mean by enough citizens to have some political effect?

      If you remember aaaalll the way back to 2005, a whistleblower at AT&T in San Francisco made public the NSA's secret wiretapping program. Despite ongoing lawsuits brought on by the EFF, it doesn't seem like the majority of the public really cared at all.

      Seems like most people simply don't give a shit about their rights. The government could announce a plan to cut every man's dick off, and few would complain. Well, some cranky newspaper columnists might complain about the "hippie protesters," but that's it.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by cosm · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    4. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. We get so make fake controversies drummed up for political benefit these days (Benghazi comes to mind) that the real ones just fade into the background noise.

      The paranoid contingent of Slashdot will insist that this is working as intended -- that there's some grand conspiracy of tens of thousands of people all working, without a single leak, to blind the American populace. The more sane answer is that the two big political parties are so focused on the next election (two years is far too little, imo) that they have no choice but to pounce on every little thing hoping to gain an advantage. Getting elected through good policy doesn't work, because by the time your policy starts to show benefits, someone else is in office to take the credit.

    5. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The implicit definition by those with power makes system success === system failure. Identical. Outrage redundant.

      Terminal illness is living death. Terminal illness is the most apt characterization of the current state of the industrialized world and for the rest stillborn will suffice. It didn't have to be this way but it was the way chosen by those in power. All of them. No matter how much they profess their innocence or opposition. No matter intent or motivation. If we were them maybe all we would do would be the same. It is very hard to know different, I probably would have failed myself.

      So we might see something new. Actually --providence or chance-- I've already seen plenty of "new" the last decades and while there have been amazing successes despite enormous untapped potential it/they still hasn't/haven't spread widely yet (relatively speaking). It is accelerating. This site was once part of it and to a small extent still is (only reason I'm here, only reason the rest of you are here as well even though you might not know it) but it is of no importance compared to the "new". Look at emergence around you, try to see where it is heading, that's what I'm talking about.

      But first comes the fall and it takes a long time for very big things to finish falling, may it be spectacular and may I survive it :)

      And if I survive long enough may I die a thousand deaths in service of the ideals of sentience :D

      Maybe I won't, maybe I'll die a mundane death at any time now while this is still over the horizon. A useless worthless life, a stupid failure of a life I tried to make the best of. But I do believe it is unavoidable that at some point at some time a lot of people will get the opportunities I see coming and would like to have. If so and as a message from beyond my grave: may you meet every possible success! I am convinced you will, by god or man.

    6. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re might add real thought or insight:
      Think back to how the UK wanted to use the GCHQ experts in open court in the early 1990's via new formed departments or technical services...
      i.e. decryption computing power and international interception options of the State presented to a court as a simple police technical unit.
      If I where running a defence team, upmarket lawyer - I would be sitting down with my top clients and giving them the 1990's celebrity/political chat:
      Hold up a cheap broken cell phone and dropping ii into a glass of water.
      Anything to make the client understand the risks of signal intelligence, logging, tracking and the first step of needing to take the battery out.
      The UK had this vision of international tracking and successful domestic court cases as mobile devices and computing use became commonplace.
      This could give the USA two options- a clean version of CALEA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act presented to track just the bad people in an international/domestic setting due to changing digital backhaul, new operation systems and realities of more people been on the move.
      Or the NSA and related agencies spin up another domestic spy hunt and try some PR spin to make it all seem just fine.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Slim and none.

    8. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by necrognome · · Score: 1

      If you remember aaaalll the way back to 2005, a whistleblower at AT&T in San Francisco made public the NSA's secret wiretapping program. Despite ongoing lawsuits brought on by the EFF, it doesn't seem like the majority of the public really cared at all.

      Seems like most people simply don't give a shit about their rights.

      One could also say that the slippery slope didn't obtain. Disclaimer: I was outraged at the time, but have yet to see the men-with-guns at my door.

      --


      Let's get drunk and delete production data!
    9. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Maybe not by US citizens but who do you think the non-US are?

      Our Allies.

      This will be interesting.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/australians-troubled-us-surveillance-google-facebook-apple

    10. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Nope. Heard on the radio this morning that the Gov is stating that this activity has prevented or stopped (can't remember) 1 terrorist attack withing the US. They are already running damage control on this so don't expect a change in public opinion. Welcome to the soft tyranny of the USA.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    11. Re:Any chance this will cause real outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't the lack of a third party, there are three viable "third parties". The Greens, Litertarians, an Constitution party were on enough ballots in the last four Presidential elections to have a mathematical chance of winning. But they can't win because the media refuses to recognize their existance.

      Stop voting Republican, vote Libertarian. Stop voting Democrat, vote Green.

  11. Is I also said on Ars... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Informative

    If this doesn't make you angry, upset and outraged, what will? Most of you will have relatives that fought and died to fight the evil of fascism in the Second World War. What was that all about, if you are just allowing the same thing on your own doorstep by stealth? Don't tell me about Godwin's Law, that's just a way to stifle debate. Call out this fascism for what it is. This is beyond the wildest dreams of the STASI or Stalin, because they didn't have the technology. The NSA and the CIA are rogue states within the state, they are beyond control and are not acting for you, or in your best interests. This should upset you. If there are not huge, mass protests on the streets of your state capitols all over the nation in the coming weeks, you should be ashamed of yourselves. The Orwellian state is not inevitable, but it takes actual action to stop this. Cynical tut-tutting will not do. This has to be shut down now, and proper protest is what it's going to take. Over to you.

    1. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Before you get too outraged, keep in mind this is all based on some random PowerPoint presentation. I wouldn't exactly call that confirmation, especially since the companies supposedly involved, many of whom have gone to court repeatedly to protect their users from unreasonable government data access, all deny knowledge of it.

    2. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      And what would you expect them to say? IT WAS A SECRET SPYING PROGRAM! Of course, if they were complicit in wholesale spying on Americans domestically, they are going to officially deny knowledge of it. Hell, the PR drones issuing the statements ACTUALLY BELIEVE their respective companies weren't spying on people for the government. You act like their denial actually proves something. If any company actually admitted to it, I'd have more respect for them.

    3. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by dmbasso · · Score: 2

      This is beyond the wildest dreams of the STASI [...]

      Indeed. And for those who don't have a clear image of what their lives already look like (in terms of privacy) when they post their private stuff in "the cloud", I highly recommend the movie Das Leben der Anderen.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    4. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this doesn't make you angry, upset and outraged, what will? Most of you will have relatives that fought and died to fight the evil of fascism in the Second World War.

      An excellent point. It almost struck me as wrapping yourself in the flag at first, but really it's not. "Fought and died for our freedoms" is something I heard often, starting in grade school. I hope it's not complete bull. We could really use some WWII and other vets saying "this is not what I fought for".

      The most effective thing I read back when an anti-flag burning amendment was the hot topic, was a letter in a local paper from a WWII vet. He had serious creds - airborne and did 3 major jumps, including D-Day. If he didn't risk his neck for this country I don't know who did. His statement was very simple. "I didn't fight for the flag, I fought for what it stands for".

    5. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA and the CIA are rogue states within the state, they are beyond control and are not acting for you, or in your best interests.

      Please provide evidence to support this statement. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm asking to provide some links showing evidence the acquisition of power is not in the best interests in the American public.

    6. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by kheldan · · Score: 2

      This has to be shut down now, and proper protest is what it's going to take.

      Good luck getting enough people to listen. They're mostly fat, lazy sheep now, which is just what the NSA, CIA, and who knows who else wanted them to be: easily controlled, and mollified by bread a circuses.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      The NSA and the CIA are rogue states within the state

      What reason is there to believe that? Absent evidence to the contrary, I believe this is under the control of our elected officials. Put the blame where it belongs.

    8. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      The NSA and the CIA are rogue states within the state, they are beyond control and are not acting for you, or in your best interests

      Respectfully, I disagree.

      I enjoy living in the most prosperous, most powerful nation in the world. And despite the fact that we have numerous foreign enemies and more than a few domestics, our security services have managed to keep attacks against the civilian population to an incredibly low number. Not being maimed, killed, or otherwise having my life ruined is absolutely in my best interest.

      And despite the fact that the less trustful members of this site consider this Orwellian, the fact remains that I'm free to go anywhere I want, profess my beliefs, and vote for those candidates I believe in. And all the while I'm not being harassed by any kind of government organization, unlike the STASI and other organizations you mention.

      So why am I not angry or outraged? Because quite frankly life is good right now. Other than telling TSA to take a hike - and I consider the TSA's mission to be well meaning but misguided - the security services that protect me have been able to improve their ability to protect me without impacting the quality of my life. My interest is to continue living a good life, and our security services are part of what it takes to uphold that. So I'd say they're very much acting in my interests.

    9. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, there are two explanations. Either it's real, in which case, your police state is already here. Or it's fake, and the question is, why would anyone fake it? Is it to test public opinion to see just how far they could push it? If the reaction is "meh" then the NSA et. al. will KNOW that they can implement such a thing and no-one's going to care a damn.

      So fake or not, it is vital that people protest en masse about this. That sends the message that such erosion of democracy cannot and will not be tolerated. And if it turns out to be a fake, then you can all breathe a small sign of relief. After all, protesting really doesn't take that much effort.

    10. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give me some evidence the CIA or the NSA are attempting to control anything about internal American politics, control people's lives, the outcomes of political processes or even innocent individuals lives or even anything like business outcomes. Because without that you have no case that they are a nefarious force in our lives. They are not breaking any law-. If you don't like it, repeal the Patriot Act.

      An ability to hypothetically do evil thing X is NOT NOT NOT the same as the desire to. They COULD nuke us! All move to a safe place and then push the button! Are you worried about that too?

      Civil society runs on the fact that people do not WANT to do evil things and if you're the NSA or the CIA evil things include any form of taking over the country politically or financially or personally.

      People do not want to do the Worst Case Scenario Evil things you are imagining. If that changes, then that's something to deal with. History is FILLED with people who have all kinds of power to do evil that they never avail themselves of. In fact, that's the normative case. I COULD shoot my dog. I don't want to. I COULD rob a bank. All of civilization goes forward on two legs. One is the basic decent impulses of people who are not anti-social but rather civic minded . The other is the law which forms a structural barrier against people who are bad and also guidance and directives for morally ambiguous or ethically complex situations.

      Without BOTH of those, we're fucked. People can be individually good, but still create chaos , war and anarchy if there is no law. OTOH even if the law is very clear, if no one WANTS to obey it, we're all fucked.

      We have law, we have decent people applying that law. We're not the Reichstag. We're not Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia . We're not Pol Pots' Cambodia.

      To tell you the truth, those were nations who came under the control of MORAL ABSOLUTISTS like yourself who were in a perpetual internal RED ALERT , who saw no shades of gray, admitted of no degrees, could not process ambiguity,and harkened back in each case to a mythical yesteryear which had been corrupted by a cabal of evil men - a situation which required the collective violence of The People against the Oppressors to rectify.

      Want to read something? Read Animal Farm.

    11. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they deny no access via a 'back door' and that they 'comply with all legal requests', as otherwise indicated in the article the 'requests' for the access detailed is all legal and therefore would also not be considered a 'back door', a 'back door' generally meaning access not normally allowed to anyone but the 'owner', in this case the owner being the internet companies there can be no definition of 'back door' that fits.

      In other words the government has given the companies a legal means to have 'plausible deniability'...

    12. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the last WW2 vet in the Senate dying this week has anything to do with these releases?

    13. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1
      For someone who is happy and proud to be an American, you have remarkably little appreciation for the Bill of Rights. "Life is good right now" ain't enough. The Fourth Amendment isn't just window dressing. It was written against a long history of government abuses. Abuses that might not affect you at this very moment, but very dangerous abuses nonetheless. While we could argue like wannabee Constitutional scholars about whether this is technically a violation of the 4th, there can be no doubt that it's a gross violation of the ideas behind it. If this technology had existed in the 18th century, this use of it would have been banned by the Bill of Rights.

      I'm free to go anywhere I want, profess my beliefs, and vote for those candidates I believe in. And all the while I'm not being harassed by any kind of government organization

      Probably true for the vast majority of Americans right now, but are you so ignorant of history that you've never heard of surveillance being used to harass and suppress dissent? There have been many such abuses in history, including this country's history, but you might want to start with a fellow named Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.

    14. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      It's as if in this poster's mind the ability to do something automatically led to the desire to do something . It's just so psychologically , socially, and historically obtuse and frankly hysterical it's hard to think of the counter at first because it's hard to understand where he's coming from at all.

    15. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I'm asking to provide some links showing evidence the acquisition of power is not in the best interests in the American public.

      A link? Here ya go..

    16. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Give me some evidence the CIA or the NSA are attempting to control anything about internal American politics, control people's lives, the outcomes of political processes or even innocent individuals lives or even anything like business outcomes. Because without that you have no case that they are a nefarious force in our lives.

      Wow. Are you at all familiar with the U.S. Constitution, the philosophy behind it, or the centuries of history of abusive practices that it was designed to prevent? Even if you could prove that the things you list weren't happening, it would still be wrong. The Constitution was written by people who understand that if government powers can be abused, they will be abused. Those people were realists, not cynics. They based the limits on government in the Constitution not on some pie-in-the-sky theories, but on personal experiences with government abuses and centuries of history with them.

      Civil society runs on the fact that people do not WANT to do evil things ...

      Great, then we can rely on that principle and get rid of all those pesky laws, including our organic law.

    17. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And despite the fact that the less trustful members of this site consider this Orwellian, the fact remains that I'm free to go anywhere I want, profess my beliefs, and vote for those candidates I believe in. And all the while I'm not being harassed by any kind of government organization, unlike the STASI and other organizations you mention.

      If you are conservative, the IRS says "hi, and welcome to the auditing process".

    18. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the IRS attacking citizens that haven't broken any laws. I assume a lot of this spying is so they can expand those attacks to friends and family of those already being attacked.

      When you have a government with an enemies list that is actively attacking them, that is the logical use for this infomation.

    19. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are you?
      Skinny?
      Defeatist?
      Snob?
      Sideline quarterback?
      CIA?

    20. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If this doesn't make you angry, upset and outraged, what will?

      I can't get angry anymore.

      I've spent the last 12 years watching the western world, and my own country in particular, fall apart in slow motion. Everything I thought I knew about the politics and the rule of law has been been invalidated three times over to the point where I can't make beleive anymore.

      How can I be angry at an outcome which I knew was inevitable? And outcome produced by a system that is inherently dysfunctional? I may as well become angry at a bird for eating a worm as become angry at the US government for doing what everyone saw coming since 2001. What happens when a government is given arbitrary powers, an eternal enemy, and a compliant judiciary and media? We all know what happens. The government being in the west does not make it different and anyone who ever thought so (I include myself in this) was a fool.

      I used to think that eventually, the political class would stoop so low they would hit rock bottom, and the resulting public outrage would sweep them away. I no longer see a logical rock bottom, apart from a return to hunter-gatherer status. I see a slow collapse of the west in general, and the US in particular, along the lines of the Soviet Union, which spent 80 years dying.

      In 100 years time, things may be different. But don't expect anger or change in the next 20. Expect decline.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    21. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone would fake it as a hoax.

    22. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They also understood that the Government was ABSOLUTELY necessary to prevent private industry doing the same evil things to the population...

      It's times like these that we see Libertarian's offer their "Government is evil" speal without providing a viable alternative to prevent private enterprise doing the exact same thing all while being a whole lot more efficient at it.

      Its all hat, no cattle.

    23. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re Why would anyone fake it?
      When East Germany was seeking the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Room thought lost after ww2 they did something fun.
      Publish plausible exploring/help part time historian stories with contact information and see what flowed in.
      All these telco and web 2.0 revelations do get people chatting and the net would seem a good medium to watch the flow of insight.
      Sites like http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html seem to show an interest with trunk phone lines running through Britain to the Republic of Ireland in the late 1980's - why would anyone feel web 2.0 would not get the same total attention with a massive US budget?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    24. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      I believe this is under the control of [those who pull the strings of] our elected officials.

      FTFY

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    25. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by undeadbill · · Score: 1

      That is the best example of coincidence theorism that I could possibly think of.

      There are so many examples of over reach out there, the only reason most people don't see them is because they are so used to them being there. Look up Nick Merrill on YouTube. Look at what is being done to Wikileaks financially at the behest of the US Government.

      "Oh, another /. story about the govt having everyone's underwear size again... ho hum. No reason to be alarmed."

    26. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Wow I just wrote a reply to someone else that is a reply to you also:

      Here ya go.

      If you think I don't agree that this and every other government has abused its power then you're wrong. But that abuse was a function of the people who lived at that time. American Indians a case in point. People then just did not think as we moderns do. Sure, they did bad things using the government as a force multiplier with its armies and ability to fund via taxes and pass laws etc. etc. but it was THOSE people who did those things, through the government.

      The Government is not a thing with a static, enduring , persitent "character" like people. Some people may not change that much- you knew them then, you know them now and they haven't changed at bit. Their character endures over time . That's actually an artifact of their biology. They learned a first language, English say, and now that's their primary language, forever. That persistence, that durable fact about them is a function of the biology of learning a language.

      But governments don't have a biology and because of that they don't have an identity that endures the way people's endures. They change when society changes. They change when the people inside their offices change. They change to reflect the times they exist in.

      You can't reason about what governments will and won't do the same way you can (reasonably) reason about what people will or won't do.

      You're talking to someone who after due consideration of the facts has come to the conclusion that some part of the government likely had a hand in the assassination of JFK. Even though I think that's true, I don't ascribe to that part of the now government the same propensities and lawlessness that it I think it used to have then. Why? Because that kind of lawlessness was pandemic in the world Eisenhower order the assassination of the democratically elected heads of state Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadeq (sp?) in Iran and in this the American people probably would have backed him, had they known:

      http://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/biography/5 [millercenter.org]

      It's a function of the times which a shorthand way of saying it's a function of the people who live at that time in history. Ditto the American South. No Southerner today countenances slavery or owns slaves (generally this is accurate) . There is no point in generalizing to today's South on the basis of yesterday's South
      .

      Today's government is more enlightened by our measure just because it is run buy us, I mean we moderns. They are not evil in the ways that past governments have been evil. If you're aq progressive like me, some things piss you off, like global warming and the lack of action. It's a crime perpetrated on future generations. But the non-action reflects about 50% of the US public's POV. That evil is a function of we "moderns."

      There is no evidence I am aware of which indicates that some part of the US government, in this case the CIA and the NSA is independently and and in secret regressing to some previous state of society's developmental norms, much less to Stalin-esque or Pol Pot-esque type thinking.

      Just because Pol Pot could have used the NSA doesn't mean the NSA is going to turn into Pol Pot.

    27. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Sorry but it appears you deliberately and malignantly excerpted half of what I said to make it appear I was saying something I wasn't saying. I was NOT saying and I explicitly made this point- that we don't need laws because people don't want to do bad things in general.

      This is not arguing in good conscience. This is the same kind of malignant and deliberate distortion we see in the media and in Washington.

      I can conclude that you're a partisan political hack who uses things like the Constitution in a purely instrumental way- to score partisan political points, and has no real interest in sincerely participating in an open debate in this democracy.

        You're the problem with our country.

    28. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      We have the IRS attacking citizens that haven't broken any laws. I assume a lot of this spying is so they can expand those attacks to friends and family of those already being attacked.

      Yeah. You know where this little toxic bit of "reasoning" comes from? From your grade school teacher

      Teacher:
            Mr Blah blah. I see you like to talk out of turn. I can assume you are planning to disrupt this class for the remainder of the year. Now I get to do this bad thing to you, because basically I don't like you and you've given me all the pretext I need to inflict arbitrary punishment on you.

      Yes that' s right anonymous coward, you can assume whatthefuck ever you want to assume and base your insane actions on it because in your world you need no proof of anything and your assumptions should be, in your mind, somehow interesting to other people .

      Jesus Christ.

      Really, I i hope you were just pulling something random out of your ass because if THAT'S your level of reasoning about reality you're walking around with a lot of self inflicted mental anguish buddy.

    29. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by hene · · Score: 1

      So who's up for a job? We need some robinhood spirited cracker to steal that data and upload it to piratebay.

      Now, that would be a real world stress test for torrents ..may want to upgrade your ADSL first.

    30. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it's fake, next time something like that crops up you're going to be written down as a conspiratard. "Total surveillance? What, like that time when you believed a random guy with a powerpoint presentation and went to 'protest en masse'?"

      There's plenty of things like this you should already be protesting about, liek CALEA and CISPA, just going protesting on unproven suspicions devalues it all.

    31. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Give me some evidence the CIA or the NSA are attempting to control anything about internal American politics, control people's lives, the outcomes of political processes or even innocent individuals lives or even anything like business outcomes. Because without that you have no case that they are a nefarious force in our lives. They are not breaking any law-. If you don't like it, repeal the Patriot Act.

      I just spat beer through my nose.

    32. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Acceptance.

      I am an expat and miss my homeland. I left because of the noise, the division of neighbors, the constant cacophony among brothers who can't appreciate what they have or had. The fear there is no doubt cancerous.

      I guess all you can do is be a good neighbor; start small.

    33. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The American security state is subverting democracy by targeting whstleblowers, journalists, and activists. Clearly, communications surveillance is on key component of this illegal government oppression. Good guys are already being targeted. Are you really so sure you are not next?

      The Hangman
      by Maurice Ogden

      Into our town the Hangman came, smelling of gold and blood and flame. And he paced our bricks with a diffident air. And built his frame on the courthouse square.
      The scaffold stood by the courthouse side, only as wide as the door was wide; a frame as tall, or little more, than the capping sill of the courthouse door.
      And we wondered, whenever we had the time, who the criminal, what the crime, that Hangman judged with the yellow twist of knotted hemp in his busy fist.
      And innocent though we were, with dread we passed those eyes of buckshot lead; till one cried: "Hangman, who is he for whom you raise the gallows-tree."
      Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye, and he gave us a riddle instead of reply: "He who serves me best," said he, "Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree."
      And he stepped down, and laid his hand on a man who came from another land and we breathed again, for another's grief at the Hangman's hand was our relief.
      And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn by tomorrow's sun would be struck and gone. So we gave him way, and no one spoke, out of respect for his hangman's cloak.

      The next day's sun looked mildly down on roof and street in our quiet town and, stark and black in the morning air, the gallows-tree on the courthouse square.
      And the Hangman stood at his usual stand with the yellow hemp in his busy hand; with his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike and his air so knowing and businesslike.
      And we cried: "Hangman, have you not done, yesterday, with the alien one?" Then we fell silent, and stood amazed: "Oh, not for him was the gallows raised."
      He laughed a laugh as he looked at us: "Did you think I'd gone to all this fuss to hang one man? That's a thing I do to stretch the rope when the rope is new."
      Then one cried, "Murderer!" One cried, "Shame!" And into our midst the Hangman came to that man's place. "Do you hold," said he, "With him that was meant for the gallows-tree?"
      And he laid his hand on that one's arm, and we shrank back in quick alarm, and we gave him way, and no one spoke out of fear of his hangman's cloak.
      That night we saw with dread surprise the Hangman's scaffold had grown in size. Fed by the blood beneath the chute the gallows-tree had taken root;
      Now as wide, or a little more, than the steps that led to the courthouse door, as tall as the writing, or nearly as tall, halfway up on the courthouse wall.

      The third he took — we had all heard tell — was a usurer and infidel, And: "What," said the Hangman, "have you to do with the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"
      And we cried out: "Is this one he who has served you well and faithfully?" The Hangman smiled: "It's a clever scheme to try the strength of the gallows-beam."
      The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched out comfort hard and long; and "What concern," he gave us back, "Have you for the doomed - the doomed and black?"
      The fifth.The sixth. And we cried again: "Hangman, Hangman, is this the man?" "It's a trick," he said, "that we hangmen know for easing the trap when the trap springs slow."
      And so we ceased, and asked no more, as the Hangman tallied his bloody score; and sun by sun, and night by night, the gallows grew to monstrous height.
      The wings of the scaffold opened wide till they covered the square from side to side; and the monster cross-beam, looking down, cast its shadow across the town.

      Then through the town the Hangman came and called in the empty streets my name - and I looked at the gallows soaring tall and thought: "There is no one left at all for hanging, and so he calls to me to help pull down the gallows-tree." And I went out with right good ho

    34. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA confirmed

    35. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Skinny+Rav · · Score: 2

      Sorry to dissappoint you, but in all totalitarian states (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and its sattelite communist states etc.) majority didn't care. I remember the '80s in communist Poland, during the Martial Law period. Most people no longer cared. Independent TV broadcasts, which were overlayed on the official TV channel, were despised, as they "deprived people of their sitcoms". Most people just wanted to be left alone. "We have basic food and TV, why bother?" Underground dissidents were considered "troublemakers". And it was shortly after the Solidarity movement, which involved like 25% of the population.

      Bread and circuses are more important to masses than freedom. Change is always driven by the few who care.

    36. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote "Give me some evidence..... the outcomes of political processes.... "

      2012 Video of RNC Teleprompter Showing Results of Scripted Voting Before Voting Finished

      This vote gave them unilateral power, essentially nullifying grassroots.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_ylYNbAlY

    37. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Because everything is classified, when the system is inevitably used to achieve political ends, you most likely won't even realise it's happened. Your position is like someone in 2001 saying "but requiring banks to verify their customers identity isn't being used to manipulate politics, it'll just be used to fight the terrorists!" and then some years later WikiLeaks gets cut off. It is only possible because of the infrastructure laid down for other reasons. In that case the smackdown was clearly visible, but most attempts to fight The Man wouldn't even get that far.

      These systems already protect themselves as their first priority. it's only a matter of time until a journalist working on a story about government abuse of power against a suspected terrorist suddenly discovers that their source vanishes. They'll never know that the US was monitoring all people that the journalist interacted with and was able to find the leak.

    38. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2

      People do not want to do the Worst Case Scenario Evil things you are imagining. If that changes, then that's something to deal with. History is FILLED with people who have all kinds of power to do evil that they never avail themselves of.

      I think you need to re-read this statement and turn it around 180 degrees. The vast, vast majority of people in the world, including US Citizens, COULD be terrorists, but they choose not to. The issue is that our government is assuming all of us COULD be guilty, and surveilling us accordingly, against our will -- a response that goes far beyond appropriate. And we still have a Constitution that is supposed to protect us from illegal searches and seizures. If YOU don't like it, repeal the 4th Amendment.

      I also suggest you rethink your statement "we have decent people applying the law" with the likes of Eric Holder and John Ashcroft in mind.

    39. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of you will have relatives that fought and died to fight the evil of fascism in the Second World War.

      No one has relatives that fought fascism in WW2 because no one was fighting fascism. Fighting fascISTS is not the same thing as fighting fascISM. All sides of that war were fascist in one non-zero degree or another.

    40. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go suck a box of cocks, asshole, and fuck off back to 4chan where you belong with your useless prattle.

    41. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      So I hear you like a soft tyranny.

      If someone actually wanted to carry out a terrorist attack it would be trivial and the people we have caught have been so inept I am surprised they haven't choked on their own tongue. If I really wanted to tomorrow I could pull off a terrorist attack that would make the Boston marathon bombings look insignificant. The simple fact that you don't see pipe bombs going off right and left in crowded places, continual mass shootings in crowded places, or people blowing up a carry on bag of gunpowder and ball bearing in a security line seems to indicate that terrorism isn't a fucking problem. All 3 of those cases would be trivial to carry out with items that are easy to legally acquire, and only took the amount of time to think up that it took to write this post.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    42. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting enough people to listen. They're mostly fat, lazy sheep now ... easily controlled, and mollified by bread and circuses.

      That's hardly a new story. Here's the basic plot line:
      1. A country is on the receiving end of a pretty serious terrorist attack (or at least what appears to be a serious terrorist attack).
      2. The government blames the attack on some religious and political minorities that are hated and feared by a large percentage of the general population.
      3. The government tells its people that in order to protect the country's existence, it needs to oppress that minority domestically and invade some foreign countries thought to be "sheltering" the bad guys.
      4. The government in question now imprisons and tortures members of the minority group it gets its hands on, and spies on everyone it can in any way it can.
      5. Police state is now formed.

      Although I should mention that the idea of mollifying people with bread and circuses started back in the Roman Empire, if not earlier.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    43. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

    44. Re:Is I also said on Ars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a certain Senator named Joe McCarthy. Or Kent State University during Vietnam.

      However, I believe that the GP is a government shill.

  12. "active" pages, not local keylogging by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm pretty sure I'd notice a keylogger on my network sending every keystroke out to elsewhere

    Do you believe that, for example, google search prediction-as-you-type is using a keylogger? It is keylogging, it's just that it's server-side.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    1. Re:"active" pages, not local keylogging by trifish · · Score: 2

      It is keylogging, it's just that it's server-side.

      Actually, no. It is client-side (whether in the Firefox search box or at google.com).

  13. Or not by ToastedRhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple, Google, and Facebook have all denied involvement in this. While this does not entirely preclude their involvement, these three companies, much like the government, tend to keep their mouths shut when they're caught with their pants down. Their denial, therefore, should carry at least some weight.

    1. Re:Or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Parse their words. They are denying a very pointed question that wasn't asked. They are all saying, "We don't allow the government direct access to our servers"

      This isn't the denial you think it is.

    2. Re:Or not by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Parse their words. They are denying a very pointed question that wasn't asked. They are all saying, "We don't allow the government direct access to our servers"

      This isn't the denial you think it is.

      Bingo. That's like the Chinese saying they don't indulge in hacking...but of course their definition bears no resemblance to anyone else's.

    3. Re:Or not by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      Aren't they still legally under a gag order even if it has been disclosed? The FISA letters don't say "keep quiet about this unless it is already public." They say "keep quiet about this period."

    4. Re:Or not by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Dropbox are now all denying providing direct access to PRISM surveillance program.

      Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling flatly adding, "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."

      Google: "From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'back door."

      Microsoft: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis.

      http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/6/4404112/nsa-prism-surveillance-apple-facebook-google-respond

    5. Re:Or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of these companies' leaders would dare be complicit in a scheme like this; their employees would leave en masse.

    6. Re:Or not by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      That is the general pattern.

      Here is the classified information non-disclosure agreement.

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

    7. Re:Or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Dropbox are now all denying providing direct access to PRISM surveillance program.

      Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling flatly adding, "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."

      We do not provide direct access.

      Google: "From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'back door."

      We do not have a back door.

      Microsoft: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis.

      We do not do anything illegal.

      None of them say, "We are not giving information to the government. Only Microsoft mentions not volunteering the information, but they can still be compelled, legally to give the information. All of these press releases answer questions that weren't asked. The question is, do you give all of your data to the US Government.

    8. Re:Or not by russotto · · Score: 1

      I think the commenter who suggested this was an NSA internal April Fools joke is probably right. And it's probably now being released so when that revelation is made public, it casts doubt on the very real surveillance of all telco call record data the Guardian uncovered.

    9. Re:Or not by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      denial, therefore, should carry at least some weight.
      At a LEO level ie a fax on department stationary or email is not a court order.
      We did get that 2011 BBC Interview with the national security comment :)
      http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/13/rim-ceo-flake/
      http://www.ibtimes.com/rim-ceo-walks-out-bbc-interview-says-security-question-unfair-279919

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Or not by dissy · · Score: 1

      With a valid court order, there is no objection to giving the data to the government.
      We don't care that answer is yes. Of course it is yes. It is almost never worth going to prison for to act otherwise.

      All have flatly said they do not give data to the government otherwise, which is the one and only point that matters.

      Unless they are literally flat out lying, these answer the very question you point out - No they do not give data to the government.

    11. Re:Or not by beaverdownunder · · Score: 2

      Programs run by the NSA are subject to US secrecy laws -- admitting to participation in the program would be tantamount to treason, and would most certainly lead to imprisonment of a company's executive and / or the possible forfeiture of a company's assets to Uncle Sam.

      If they're involved in such a program, they simply _can't_ admit to it, and they _must_ deny it -- even if this eventually places them in legal jeopardy in other contexts. Obviously, given this understanding, any 'assurances' these companies aren't involved are worthless -- and horribly naive.

    12. Re:Or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they totally wouldn't lie!
      Especially not Zuckerberg! lol ;)

      My friend, I learned the hard way, that just because from your standpoint you generally don't lie, and humans tend to assume other people are like themselves, that doesn't mean others don't lie without even blinking.

      There are psychopaths out there that you wouldn't believe in even if you knew them personally and they were right in the process of destroying your life. I know. I worked with such people. They don't even see it as bad. They see it as (doing you) good. Which is why they don't even get sweaty under a lie detector. From their standpoint it never is a lie or evildoing.

      Sorry... Apple, Google and Facebook lied more often than you can imagine. Their advertisements alone suffice to fill that. Or do you think all of that is even remotely 100% true?
      And here they think they can't even tell you because of some gag orders. So from their POV, everything is fine.

    13. Re:Or not by dissy · · Score: 1

      I must admit I'm pretty confused as to your point.

      AC comes along and states "These companies didn't claim anything" when presented with proof otherwise.

      I correct AC that "No, they claimed to not share data with the government, they are just lying."

      Finally you come along and correct me "No they never claimed to not share data. Also those claims they did not make are clearly truthful."
      You then call me naive for believing their claims that they never made?

      You should really make up your mind.

      I still hold that the companies claimed to not share data, and that they are not telling the truth.
      If you wish to prove either of those false:
      - that they claimed to not share data and are telling the truth, or
      - that they did not claim to not share data
      You'll have to provide more evidence than that.

    14. Re:Or not by lecoupdejarnac · · Score: 2

      Parse their words. They are denying a very pointed question that wasn't asked. They are all saying, "We don't allow the government direct access to our servers" This isn't the denial you think it is.

      THIS. Notice that all their responses are very similar. They may have even asked the government "the press is asking about PRISM, how should we respond to this?"

      "Direct access to our servers" could mean a lot of things, for example, they could be copying user data directly to NSA servers, and their statement would still be true.

    15. Re:Or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have direct access to the servers, they use a jumpbox like everyone else, much like they don't have a backdoor they walk right in the front. And if they were requested from some secretive directive or such that would be a legally binding order.

  14. Sounds familiar by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Suddenly, I don't feel like the FBI agent from this slashdot article was just exaggerating claims to drum up interest for in a book he wanted to release....

    --
    Demented But Determined.
  15. also relevant by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now reports that it's not just Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, ISPs, and credit card companies are involved as well. Harry Reid said, "Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that is brand new,'' which I'm sure makes everyone feel better.

    Diane Feinstein is ok with the program because she personally gets to approve it, as part of her committee position. Remember Obama voted for this before he ever got elected president, so if any of this surprises anyone, they are naive.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:also relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She approves of it because her defense contractor husband makes millions off of it.

    2. Re:also relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As one of the few posters here who opposes digital piracy, I'm struck by the how quickly people's views change over from "information wants to be free... the copyright holders need to adopt to reality of how the Internet works" to "this is an unprecedented invasion of privacy, whooooaaa we never assented to this!"

      And I've ALWAYS been suspicious of the personal information being compiled by Google, Amazon, MasterCard/Visa, the web ad networks and the rest. That's one reason I post as AC. Because the likes of Google either can today or will soon be able to collate all the posts made under a handle with linguistically and semantically similar posts made at other sites, and eventually attach real names to pseudo-anonymous posts. OK, the NSA can do that even with AC posts, but at least they're not sharing the information with other businesses.

      I've been saying all along that turning over all of our privacy so we can get all the free music and movie downloads we want (albeit illegal in many cases) and free Internet apps to replace what we used to have to grudgingly pay the likes of Microsoft and Adobe for, is a Faustian bargain. For a lot of things, we are worse off because of the Internet, WWW, and fibre communication networks. Somehow, it takes an event like this to disturb people, even though the news is not one bit surprising to me. That's right, some of the "ex-NSA employees" are reportedly flabbergasted and I'm not. Maybe they're a little bit slow, or just pretending so they can get quoted.

    3. Re:also relevant by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As one of the few posters here who opposes digital piracy, I'm struck by the how quickly people's views change over from "information wants to be free... the copyright holders need to adopt to reality of how the Internet works" to "this is an unprecedented invasion of privacy, whooooaaa we never assented to this!"

      A lot of people who hold that opinion just want to download music for free......thus it is not inconsistent at all to hold both opinions, both are based in personal selfishness.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:also relevant by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      As one of the few posters here who opposes digital piracy, I'm struck by the how quickly people's views change over from "information wants to be free... the copyright holders need to adopt to reality of how the Internet works" to "this is an unprecedented invasion of privacy, whooooaaa we never assented to this!"

      The two acts are very, very different. Copyright doesn't protect the privacy of the content creators. It protects their profits. Digital data that you willingly provide to anyone who asks (even if for a price) is inherently not private.

      To turn piracy into a privacy analogy, piracy is like a newspaper posting a picture of you mooning the mayor in the court square. Government invasion of personal privacy is like a newspaper posting a picture of you sunbathing in the nude that they took through a hole in your fence.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:also relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't saying the two acts are the same thing. I said that posters forget they often justify piracy here, very loudly, partly on the basis that is the way the Internet "works" and it's going to happen whether there are laws on the books proscribing such behavior or not, or whether the copyright holders fight it or not. So the copyright holders have a choice of going with the flow or get rolled. Nice Internet!

      There are many, many organizations apart from the US government surreptitiously trying to collect and mine terabytes of personal information from the Internet, mobile communication and transportation networks, transactional databases etc for political, law enforcement, marketing and other purposes. If the NSA stopped immediately there would still be tons of other governments, corporations, and other entities collecting this stuff, and they're moving way beyond "people who made purchases similar to yours also bought.." type applications. They want to know every aspect of how people live, think, and act, collectively and individually. In other words, it's another way the Internet works, and it's plenty creepy. Bad Internet!

    6. Re:also relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the likes of Google either can today or will soon be able to collate all the posts made under a handle with linguistically and semantically similar posts made at other sites,

      So you are telling me that you post AC, because google will be able to match what you say by the way you say things to a real name?

      news for you buddy, You just said something. They will match this AC post to your real name.

      Unless you have managed to only post AC every time you are on the internet.

    7. Re:also relevant by Sique · · Score: 1
      This is actually true, information wants to be free, and the knife thus cuts both ways.

      You can copy everything that comes in data form as often as you want and for cheap. And the collection of data can be automated too, thus it is also cheap. For a data processing machine, the semantic of data makes no difference, even if we attach labels like "private information", "work of Art", "wellknown facts", "state secrets" or whatever to the data.

      But it's the semantic that determines how we feel about the proliferation of information. Privacy means that we aren't even allowed to collect the information at all, less giving it away. Secrecy means that we might be allowed to collect the information ("need to know"), but not spread it etc.pp. As long as collection information and spreading it was somewhat cumbersome and a slow process, it was easy to weigh the costs of doing it anyway vs. the advantages of doing so, and the semantics remained mainly intact, private information remained mainly private, secrets sometimes stayed secret etc.pp. But with the cost going to zero, now we have to weigh the advantages of proliferation only against the retaliation of doing so, and the amount of retaliation is something we can influence or believe we could influence.

      Yes, information wants to be free, now the cost is no longer attached to the collection and the spreading of information, but to the blocking of the collection and the proliferation. And the amount of effort we want to put into the blocking of information is open to discussion.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:also relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC here.

      "That's one reason I post as AC. Because the likes of Google either can today or will soon be able to collate all the posts made under a handle with linguistically and semantically similar posts made at other sites..."

      Yeah, I have no illusions about that either. Anybody with sufficient interest could select you as AC versus me as AC and the zillions of other ACs out there. I've assumed for the last 10 years that anything I say or do on the net is being monitored pretty much in exactly the way it's turned out -- because it's been technically feasible. It doesn't require wearing a tin-foil-hat. If my job was trying to secure the country by monitoring telecommunications inside or outside or across it's borders it's exactly what I'd do.

      There's also no way this is peculiar to the US. I'm sure every western democracy has implemented something similar or is in the process of doing so. Where we've failed is in having an open and frank discussion about what would and wouldn't be acceptable in terms of monitoring these new modes of communication. It's never happened, and that's what I do find surprising and weird.

      Back when telephones were first deployed it became obvious that law enforcement needed wiretapping to foil criminal activities. After abuses, the laws were made pretty strict, such as requiring a judge's warrant and probable cause before it would be allowed. But nobody's sat down with the people in any of today's democracies and said "You know, the Internet is a new means of communication, and like the phone system, law enforcement needs access in order to track criminals, and national intelligence agencies need the same thing. These will be the situations where such tracking will be allowed, and where it won't, and it will all have the same judicial supervision as traditional phone taps." Instead, we get a decade of rumors about secret NSA taps, warrantless wiretapping scandals when the news finally breaks, secret FISA court rulings that nobody ever sees, and nobody can push through the courts to settle important constitutional questions because they can't even get standing to pursue a case without confirmation that they were actually tapped. It's ridiculous. The whole thing needs to be redone, because there's never been a *proper* public conversation about the right balance.

      The comments by that NSA chief because of this are stupid. This disclosure compromises security? That's nonsense. Anybody who has half a clue already knew. I mean, seriously. Nothing is different in a technology sense from warrantless wiretapping that was disclosed years ago. Also, all they were ever going to catch in these dragnets were the stupid terrorists. Given the record, I suppose that's probably most of them. But even so, it was only a matter of time before even the stupid ones would adjust their behavior. If you didn't have a plan to deal with the inevitable realization by the public that this was going on, then you were foolish. Of course it was coming out. It already had come out years ago, but people found it hard to believe the monitoring was that extensive and flagrant. Now we know for sure. Deal with it.

      And legislators do your fricking jobs. You're supposed to be looking out for the public's interests, not saying "Yeaaaah, I guess that's okay as long as a few of us are on the secret committees monitoring the activity and a rubber-stamp court approves thousands of requests." NO, you need to talk with your constituents and figure out from them what THEY think is the right balance. And if you can't talk about it because it's too secret, then you need to talk to those three-letter-acronym agencies and say "No, we won't sign off on this until we have a PUBLIC conversation with the voters about what is okay." Instead we get successive renewals of legislation (by all parties) that everybody said would probably be abused to do exactly this. And here we are. Betrayed, because you didn't even fricking consult us about it! That's what people are

    9. Re:also relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, maybe they will, but only for that post and my followups on this thread. They'll say, we know with 99.998 percent certainty that this is Ron Wolfscheim of 44 Highland Park Chicago Ill, 44-yr old male, voted Democratic in the last three Presidential elections.

      But. They won't necessarily know that about all of my other posts on Slashdot, or they'll try to tie them together with additional uncertainty.

      BTW I've always assumed that the NSA has a special web browser that has a mode that annotates every post in every public forum with "Rob Wolfscheim, 44-yr old male, 99.98 percent certainty...". Maybe the FBI does too.

    10. Re:also relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Google, Amazon, FB or some other private organization can FORCE me to disclose personal information to them, can force me to PAY them to fund their operations and is allowed to kidnap me and throw me in a cage (or just murder me) with no legal consequences, I'll be worried about the data being collected by the evil corporations.

    11. Re:also relevant by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 1

      Of course this isn't brand new. This was even covered on slashdot 7 years ago: http://slashdot.org/story/06/05/11/1216245/the-nsa-knows-who-youve-called "Aided by the cooperation of US telecom corporations, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans"

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  16. Slashleft by footNipple · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I hope most US slashdotters are not too rankled by this reality because this is what they voted for. Bush and Nixon, two presidents modern leftists love to vilify, HAVE NOTHING on the monster currently in office...NOTHING.

    1. Re:Slashleft by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are a fool for trying to turn this into a partisan argument. Both parties are happily wiping their asses with the Constitution, and it's hard to find anyone here who doesn't understand that. Your partisan nonsense is exactly the sort of diversion that these politicians find useful.

    2. Re:Slashleft by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope most US slashdotters are not too rankled by this reality because this is what they voted for. Bush and Nixon, two presidents modern leftists love to vilify, HAVE NOTHING on the monster currently in office...NOTHING.

      Before you try to pin this on the left, take a look at who voted for the Patriot Act:

      2001:
              Senate: 98 voted for the act, a single democrat voted against
              House: 357 voted for the act, 66 voted against (62 democrats, 3 republicans)
      2006: Patriot act renewal
              Senate: 89 voted for the act, 10 against (9 democrats, 0 republicans)
              House: 280 voted for the act, 138 against (124 democrat, 13 republican)
      2011: Patriot act renewal
              Senate: 72 Yes, 23 against (18 democrat, 4 republican)
              House: 275 Yes, 144 no (117 democrat, 27 republican)

      If the leftist monster in the whitehouse is solely responsible for this, then why didn't our republican saviors in Congress do anything to stop it, not even back before Obama was even in office?

      Sources:

      http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
      http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/84
      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll036.xml

    3. Re:Slashleft by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Counting the votes is meaningless. 'No' votes were symbolic since they knew the act would pass. Both parties are exactly equally to blame, because as a whole they both supported the Patriot Act, just as both Bush and Obama renewed it (and Obama made it permanent), just as both parties voted for the Iraq War Resolution, against the closure of Guantanamo, etc. etc. Democrats could have blocked any of those things if they wanted.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:Slashleft by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Counting the votes is meaningless. 'No' votes were symbolic since they knew the act would pass. Both parties are exactly equally to blame, because as a whole they both supported the Patriot Act, just as both Bush and Obama renewed it (and Obama made it permanent), just as both parties voted for the Iraq War Resolution, against the closure of Guantanamo, etc. etc. Democrats could have blocked any of those things if they wanted.

      Then why did so few republicans cast "No" votes? Apparently they voted how their constituents wanted them to vote, otherwise they could have just voted "no" since they were assured that their votes wouldn't make a difference anyway.

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

      I've posted a comment to you elsewhere and while we might all squabble this way or that I would as third party ask you if you would have said the same with the same vehemence (justified or understandable or not) to the endless Bush-bashers of yore? And perhaps more than a little caution is advised with regard to thinking better of third or fourth or fifth parties?

      A system failure is not a party political issue, all parties no matter how minuscule are still part of the system by being registered parties. The system isn't shallow in organization. The system as it has been mangled cares not for ideals or intent except as superficial tools.

      Nor is this system failure limited to the US. I see the same failure plain as day locally where I live a quarter of a globe away. It is happening everywhere and is multifaceted.

      Maybe this comment will inhibit some of the endless back and forth that is likely to come (not necessarily from either of you or me).

    6. Re:Slashleft by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. Perhaps Republicans thought a yes vote would serve them better in the next election (strong on national security) whereas some of the Democrats were leaving the option open to distance themselves from the potentially unpopular policies etc. Regardless, as always the outcome is decided in the backroom meetings long before the actual vote and the Democratic party leadership and the house and senate leaders Reid and Pelosi strongly supported those policies. Of course, individual members might then vote in a way that they think will serve them best politically, but if their 'yes' vote was truly needed they would have provided it (except for a handful of true mavericks, Ron Paul, Russ Feingold etc.)

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:Slashleft by SonnyDog09 · · Score: 2

      Obama did sign the bill in 2011, didn't he? You make it sound like all of this stuff just happened around him and he has nothing whatever to do with it.

      Harry Truman had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that read "The Buck Stops Here." Neither Obama, nor his acolytes, believe that he is responsible for anything that they do not like.

      --
      Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
    8. Re:Slashleft by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      We're past the time to point fingers. We're at a time of action, and divisive posts like this are not helping.

    9. Re:Slashleft by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Obama did sign the bill in 2011, didn't he? You make it sound like all of this stuff just happened around him and he has nothing whatever to do with it.

      Harry Truman had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that read "The Buck Stops Here." Neither Obama, nor his acolytes, believe that he is responsible for anything that they do not like.

      I was trying to make it sound like there was stronger Republican support for the bill than Democratic support, so it's not like the Patriot Act would have expired or been vetoed if there were a Republican in the Whitehouse, especially since the initial bill and first renewal happened under a republican president (and yes, voted for by Senator Obama).

    10. Re:Slashleft by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      It's true... Looking at the right and the left right now you can see them subtly trying to steer the debate back to the same old "scandals", and away from this story. This is not the time for partisan politics, I'm a die hard lefty and I would love to see the administration taken to task for this.

  17. FLAG: Suspicious Activity by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

    tag: "bomb" in user name.

    tag: threatening antisocial activities.

    ELEVATE WATCH STATUS

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  18. Free Market Risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This data poses a significant risk to a free market economy reliant on technology. Business is no longer demarcated from personal life, so spying on people means spying on business.

    Would you start a new business if the government had access to all it's communications? Would you trust them not to share that information with others, or exploit it for their own benefit?

    Unless there's checks and balances, like the recently neutered STOCK Act, there will be temptation to exploit this data for unimaginable gain.

  19. The usual justification by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the presentation cited in FTA:

    NSA reporting increasingly relies on PRISM” as its leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports.

    But are those reports anything useful? Data is cheap, especially these days. Finding useful information is as difficult as ever, perhaps more so because of the flood of data. It wasn't a lack of data that kept 9/11 from being prevented, it was the failure of FBI headquarters to listen to their own field offices.

    My prediction is that, even though these programs are now being widely reported on, there will be crickets chirping after it's asked what useful information they have obtained. I won't believe it's because that information is sensitive, as government never fails to crow about the wonderful things they've done.

    Just to make my position clear, I don't think these programs are justifiable no matter what useful information is collected. However, a failure to collect useful information adds insult to injury, and renders moot any debate about whether this is an acceptable tradeoff.

  20. How to stop it. by xpatch · · Score: 0

    Don't use these services I guess...

    1. Re:How to stop it. by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't use these services I guess...

      Those are the services you know of.

      Will you also stop using your bank, email, IM, your credit card, etc? The government can (and probably is) monitoring everything you do that has an electronic trail.

    2. Re:How to stop it. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/
      Make Firefox send out periodically issued randomised search-queries to popular search engines all day, everyday :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:How to stop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And get shut out of popular search engines for bot-like behaviour!

  21. I've been thinking about going 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been thinking about returning my lifestyle to the 80s. The only thing I really need the Internet for is finance--it's just too expensive and klutzy to trade stock over the phone. Actually though, by choosing to invest mostly in "widow and orphan" utility stocks, the frequency with which I need to trade or monitor my accounts declines too. I'd have to give up Slashdot; but it's kind of a time killer anyway.

    The 80s were actually pretty nice. OK... I'd hate not being able to make phone calls from anywhere, or having to dial in to my answering machine and check messages... The NSA would still have my call records and probably my conversations but... anyway...

    The 80s were actually pretty fun... except for the whole threat of a nuclear exchange.

  22. So much for CISPA by Daniel_Stuckey · · Score: 1

    With PRISM / BLARNEY, this battle is pointless, amirite?

    1. Re:So much for CISPA by NeveRBorN · · Score: 1

      With PRISM / BLARNEY, this battle is pointless, amirite?

      My bet is that CISPA was an attempt to legitimize this after the fact.

  23. Someone should write a book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that there used to be a book about a society that watched everything you did and had a Party that kept close tabs on all Citizens. However, I checked with the Ministry of Truth and no such book exists. Perhaps it went down the MemoryHole. It would be a Thoughtcrime to suggest that such a book existed, so forget I said anything.

  24. Silicon Valley? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 0

    When did Microsoft become a Silicon Valley company? Always thought they were in Washington.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Silicon Valley? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      When did Microsoft become a Silicon Valley company?

      The fancy name for it is a metonym. BTW, do you have any thoughts on the US being a surveillance state, or is your concern limited to geography?

  25. Overwhelming by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, I (and everyone else) should be outraged at what is not only an invasion of privacy (citizens or not), but also a use of taxpayer money.

    And, yet, all I can do is sigh. PRISM, Verizon, NSA, TSA, IRS, HLS, I just find it all overwhelming and disheartening. Sure, I could e-mail/call/mail my congressman or representative, but the cynicism I've gained over this past decade of political bullshit just tells me that my Congressman is already well aware of whatever is happening and is quite happy with the situation, no matter their party. (I see lots of scrutiny from the GOP, but not a single bill from the "we've voted to repeal Obamacare 37 times" House trying to rein in the President's actions or the actions of the various 3-letter organizations.) I'll do research every time I go to vote but I know that I'm in the minority that does so, while the voting population at large will blindly follow that D or R regardless of the candidates' viability, platforms, or intelligence, so it all seems for naught. I encourage my relatives to vote third party, but none of them heed my pleas to actually research who they vote for. (I have no circle of friends in which to do the same.) For all the abuse and impropriety of this, I just can't see a way to affect change.

    I'm not even mad about this, though I should be. I'm just depressed. Circus and bread, indeed.

    (Actually, if I adjust my tin-foil hat slightly, I wonder if all of this isn't coming out at the same time to be just that: overwhelming, numbing the average American, so that they just give up and don't raise hell about it.)

    1. Re:Overwhelming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Take heart. Ruminate on what is going on and why these systems inevitably fail. They destroy themselves.

      Route around the damage to the best of your ability and try to enjoy what can be enjoyed.

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

      Sure, I could e-mail/call/mail my congressman or representative....

      There's no need, we already know. Welcome to the surveillance state.

    3. Re:Overwhelming by TheSync · · Score: 2

      You could vote Libertarian Party...

      The Libertarian Party rejects President Bush's claims that the "Protect America Act" needs to be made permanent, citing that the bill fails to live up to its name and only limits American civil liberties. The controversial Act that was passed by Congress last August altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and legalized the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program, which many civil liberties organizations had strongly protested. "Every American should be fundamentally opposed to the 'Protect America Act,'" says Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "Despite its catchy name, the Act does nothing of the sort."

      (source)

    4. Re:Overwhelming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who did they give the Nobel Peace Prize to?

      It is outrageous. Absolutely.

      What you need to do is spread your logic and opinion to as many folks as you can. That's all we can do for now, but it is a powerful tool.

    5. Re:Overwhelming by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about third parties is they can say whatever the fuck they want when they have no chance of winning.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    6. Re:Overwhelming by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      Note: Paraphrased from my comment on Friday June 07, 2013 @09:07AM

      I share your frustration with trying to work the system at the federal level, but just because your vote in federal elections doesn't count, and your DC representatives are unresponsive, do NOT give me this BS about how you can't do ANYTHING to effect change. Working federal elections IS a waste of time, but many state governments are pushing back against federal overreach. e.g. marijuana legalization, rejection of federal firearms laws, anti-NDAA legislation, etc. Maybe you CAN influence a local, state or county election.

      If you can't participate in active protest, use your nerd skills to help people out with using Linux, TOR, encryption, MAC address spoofing, anonymous cell phones and other technical solutions for privacy. Maybe help flood the system with irrelevant data. You can also divert some of your financial resources to organizations fighting the fight on your behalf. I'm sure you know about EFF. You might also consider:

      ACLU
      Tenth Amendment Center
      Young Americans for Liberty
      Center for Constitutional Rights
      EPIC

      Yes, there is a deliberate effort on the part of the federal government to overwhelm us. Voting in federal elections is practically useless, but there are plenty of ways to resist.

    7. Re:Overwhelming by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      Vote for them, but don't pretend that you're accomplishing anything by doing so.

    8. Re:Overwhelming by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      I don't believe the Libertarian party would do any better (and would make some things worse,) nor do I agree with all of its ideas. However, since they do seem to have the largest third party support, I go with them when I can't find a candidate I actually like in an attempt to send a message to the major parties.

    9. Re:Overwhelming by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about third parties is they can say whatever the fuck they want when they have no chance of winning.

      An unfunny thing about the Democrat and Republican parties is that they say whatever the fuck they want (and lie about it) and are guaranteed to not only win, but to be re-elected even after having been proved to have been lying in the past.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    10. Re:Overwhelming by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Vote for them, but don't pretend that you're accomplishing anything by doing so.

      I do vote for third parties, and I actually do "pretend" I'm not compromising my own principles by voting for (a "lesser") evil.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  26. I don't mind them reading my stuff by kawabago · · Score: 2

    as long as they click on my ads!

    1. Re:I don't mind them reading my stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they have a good spam filter.

  27. We knew it by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    We knew the patriot act made that possible. We knew the US government could not resist using such a possibility.

    Now we have the proof. Next question: are there other governments involved?

    1. Re:We knew it by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since the Bradley Manning leak showed he was one of more than a million people with access to that intelligence pool you can be that any government with a military budget bigger than Samoa is going to have someone on the payroll that can read it if they want to.

    2. Re:We knew it by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Insightful. Your answer deserves some mod points.

  28. Not just about the intrernet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is not just about catching an enemy actor dumb enough to use the internet to communicate--it also forces the more skill-endowed operators to use conventional methods, such as letters in code, secret meetings, and dead drops, all of which have proven, conventional countermeasures. Or they might use encryption in their communications, which stands out like a sore thumb.

  29. Coup D'etat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we have a coup d'etat yet?

    1. Re:Coup D'etat by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

      Can we have a coup d'etat yet?

      No. Soldiers haven't been quartered yet. You have to punch all the amendments in you Bill of Rights appreciation card to qualify for a coup. The good news is that if the eleventh amendment is violated we qualify for a free hoagie.

    2. Re:Coup D'etat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the new government will surreptitiously do the same, but, of course, STRICTLY to watch out for agents of old regime. If you're not one, you've got nothing to fear, citizen.

  30. MODS : -1, Funny please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mods : can we arrange a -1, Funny on the parent. Thx

  31. National security letters by future+assassin · · Score: 0

    Why don't all the people/companies that got them say so, all on the same day. Are they're gonna prosecute all of them? Bunch of pussies you get what you deserve if you don't stand up to a dictatorship. Mind you most of the corporation would be more than happy to be eventually be able to set governmental policies and laws.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  32. How to stop posting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't use these services I guess...

    Those are the services you know of.

    Will you also stop using your bank, email, IM, your credit card, etc? The government can (and probably is) monitoring everything you do that has an electronic trail.

    Darn! Now I'm no longer able to reply to Slashdot posts.

    What you may see is a lot more internet traffic not going through the US. We're abusing our position, and it will also give more fuel to the fire that the internet should be controlled by someone other than the US. Also you're going to see both more encryption, and a rise in personal servers not controlled by companies that can be rolled like a drunk.

  33. Well, if you don't have anything to hide... by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2
    it still matters:

    Although the Panopticon prison design did not come to fruition during Bentham's time, it has been seen as an important development. It was invoked by Michel Foucault (in Discipline and Punish) as metaphor for modern “disciplinary” societies and their pervasive inclination to observe and normalise. “On the whole, therefore, one can speak of the formation of a disciplinary society in this movement that stretches from the enclosed disciplines, a sort of social 'quarantine', to an indefinitely generalizable mechanism of 'panopticism'.” The Panopticon is an ideal architectural figure of modern disciplinary power. The Panopticon creates a consciousness of permanent visibility as a form of power, where no bars, chains, and heavy locks are necessary for domination any more.

    1. Re:Well, if you don't have anything to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foucault got it right. The problem here is not the surveillance in itself. The problem is the power gradient. What we all need to demand is equal access to the product - i.e. to intelligence collected from public (state) sensors, first, and then from private sensors. Bring on the People's Panopticon!

  34. So are there any heros not cooperating in this? by infosinger · · Score: 1

    It has been admitted that without the voluntary cooperation of these companies, this level of surveilance would not be possilbe. So, are there any heros out there we should support that have NOT been cooperating?

    1. Re:So are there any heros not cooperating in this? by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      Careful with wording.

      One can cooperate without it being voluntary.

      Cooperation under duress can get the job done.

      For the corporation's part, if they choose to cooperate they get immunity and they get paid well by the government; Congress ensured the financial incentives were strong in FISAAA of 2008. See 50 USC 1802(a). Cooperate and you get immunity and money.

      If the companies choose not to cooperate, then certain executives get prison time and the violation still occurs; but they don't get immunity and they don't get paid.

      Not much of a choice.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  35. Backup by ISoldat53 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I accidentally deleted an email. Do you think I can get it from the NSA?

    1. Re:Backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now there's a thought. If everyone, and I mean everyone and anyone who has lost electronic information that was once transmitted across the internet set a formal request to the NSA for retrieval, CC your congressman/woman. What would the outcome be?

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

      No, they have it overclassified three times already.

  36. Been assuming it for years by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2290782&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=36643606

    Interesting AC reply there to my post. Think of it this way. Our posts now are essentially programming an AI that will likely exist in a few decades emerging from all this collected surveillance data. What do we want to teach this sentient creature by our words and deeds? Thus my sig on the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity. As well as my other writings.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Been assuming it for years by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What do we want to teach this sentient creature by our words and deeds? Thus my sig on the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity. As well as my other writings.

      Much good will it do, between 4chan and Fox News story comments...

  37. if you want to plan something bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just obfuscate it. The NSA doesn't have anywhere near the big data analysis ability to do anything with almost all of the info they are (allegedly) siphoning up. I, for one, am passing around plans in slashdot posts.

    The ship sails at midnight.

    Parse that big Utah data center.

  38. I'm concerned about Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they tapping to major porn sites as well? GangBus, MyNeighbourMILF, Xhamster, YouPorn, Redtube etc.
    Please don't expose me.

  39. oh baby.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you're saying is that in a government archive when I got on the Skype and showed my penis to my girlfriend people at the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc. are oogling it? And, this is a bad thing how? The very fact that they had to look at my big fat cock when they didn't want to I think offsets the injustice of it all. Just saying.

  40. Xbox One designed by NSA to expand spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sheeple starting to get the message yet? The monsters that rule you are NOT playing games.

    The Xbox One expands NSA spying into the last place it has always been excluded from, the homes of ordinary Americans (and obviously citizens of many other nations too). The XBone is 'always on' and expects a continuous connection to the Internet. It WILL allow an Internet connection once every 24 hours at worst, and can be switched off at the mains, but is designed to discourage any user from disconnecting the power or the Internet connection.

    If you refuse to allow the XBone to be connected to the Internet all through the night, compulsory software updates are specifically designed to disrupt use of the console during the day and evening. In other words, that game you want to play will only start after up to 30 minutes of new downloads, making you curse yourself for not letting the console run continuously 24 hours a day.

    The Kinect sensor system CANNOT be disabled regardless of how you currently choose to use the console. If the sensors aren't powered and fully functional, the applications and games fail to run. If the sensors detect a 'lack of calibration' (tape over the cameras or the kinect set facing the wall), the console will pester you to immediately recalibrate.

    2 CPU cores (from a pool of 8), dedicated blocks of DSP logic, 3GB or RAM, a chunk of the HDD storage space, and a second OS are DEDICATED exclusively to processing the output of the Kinect sensor bar. Even when you are playing the most processor/graphics intensive non-Kinect AAA game, the Kinect system is running at 100%.

    The Kinect sub-system has many built in spying features, and other features that can be remotely programmed and remotely activated in real-time by agencies connected to the console over the Internet. The hardware is designed to allow the creation of encrypted files and streams in real-time so that even with hardware monitoring tools, the owner of the console CANNOT identify the form of data produced/stored/streamed across the Internet by the console.

    By default, the XBone monitors each person in the room, taking full face photographs daily of each 'new' person, and noting when they enter and leave the room. This information is stored on the HDD, and at worst uploaded during the once-each-24-hour connect period. This way, the NSA is given complete data about usage of the room.

    The Xbox One also uses a signature list mechanism to trigger more intensive capture of Kinect data. The entries of the signature list are constantly compared to the output of the cameras and microphone array, looking for matches. A signature might be something like a gunshot, or a male speaking Arabic. When a signature is hit, the Console can connect to a remote server immediately, or if the Internet is currently off, start saving a high quality stream of Kinect data to the HDD. The HDD, of course, allows even those that keep switching the Internet connection off to be monitored once they reconnect to the Internet.

    Normally, the NSA will command consoles in locations of 'interest' to run in snapshot sample mode, where a much lower quantity of data is gathered continuously from Kinect, so that the bandwidth used during uploading will not be so suspicious or concerning to the user. NSA people can mine the snapshot data to determine whether they wish to download specific signature triggers to the console, or activate full remote streaming at a particular time. Being fully programmable, the code base used to spy on the user and his/her room can be modified in any way desirable.

    Of course, the Kinect can be programmed to detect nudity and sexual activity using the body recognition features of Kinect- features that are vastly improved in the Kinect version 2 included with the Xbox One. Sexual material is commonly identified and gathered by the NSA to enable standard blackmail methods to be used in coercing targets in various ways. Since a legion of 'nerds' designed the console, the remote viewing of a users sexual

    1. Re:Xbox One designed by NSA to expand spying by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      every sane person should be sickened to their core

      The US government, NSA, FBI, CIA are all scared shitless of us. That's why they're trying to monitor everything we do (apart from the obvious perverted thrill of it).

      Sickened? I'm not sickened, I just don't buy into the fear you're mongering. These scared government groups will be monitoring and influencing the behaviour of their scared citizens because the fear is contagious. Don't buy into it! Overcome your fear and stand as a person for the government fear mongerers to fear. This is where they reside, in fear of YOU. If the reverse is true, they win.

      This isn't a fight and there will be no justice until the government of your country respects you. As long as you spend your time imitating their fear mongering, you won't accomplish anything. Okay, the XBone is full of spying gear .. don't buy one. Problem solved.

    2. Re:Xbox One designed by NSA to expand spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You underestimate what can be done with Kinect-type sensors.

    3. Re:Xbox One designed by NSA to expand spying by black3d · · Score: 1

      Had my attention until word 3, after which nothing you say has any value unless every claim has an accompanying citation.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    4. Re:Xbox One designed by NSA to expand spying by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      XBone is full of spying gear .. don't buy one. Problem solved.

      Not exactly. Every android and iOS phone is nearly as bad. People who are able to doublethink have remained aware of this for the past decade. I mean seriously, use the android tricorder app and look how sensitive those accelerometers are. The thing can measure my fucking pulserate as I read webpages. I only own one because I'm the type that is so far gone they've already written their all-american orwellian self published scifi novel.

      You're glib answer to the "your papers please" question is historically equivalent to "don't like showing your papers? don't leave your own property".

      These human rights violaters need to to be stopped. There should have been outrage when yahoo turned over email account information to China, a government known for massacring it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful demonstration for democracy (in '89, as the doubelethinking chinese know it). There should have been outrage, when Google boosted it's profits and entrenched its market share and destroyed it's competition by partnering with the Chinese government to filter their internet-worldview of any dangerous reference to "Tiananmen Square" that otherwise had statistically significant results via Google's pagerank algorithm.

      You are right, the government is still scared shitless of us (not much different than any other time in history when radicals threatened the established dominance of the white-male of the species).

      The problem is that the powers of persuasion that technology has enabled for the government are so horrifying, that we are beginning to finally see defectors like this. It gives me some hope.

    5. Re:Xbox One designed by NSA to expand spying by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      It gives me some hope

      Wow! You make a good point. You should come here more often.

  41. Your call to congressman is logged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " Sure, I could e-mail/call/mail my congressman or representative"

    Your call to your congressman will be logged, and since this is a call to a government official it most likely will be voice logged too. Better hope the creep listening in agrees with your views.

  42. Not all that surprising by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

    Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of: Surveillance by secret agents

  43. The STASI are the bad guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes STASI man, you are ok with it.

    We get it, NSA was not supposed to spy on Americans, so instead it gets the FBI to sign the FISA orders.
    They were supposed to get a warrant, instead they grab ALL data on EVERYONE with a few warrants, put it in a big database, then access it at will warrant free.
    You were supposed to not plant propaganda into US media, but hey, what does it matter now! Plant away.

    Yes Mr STASI man, I understand where your coming from. You think they're the good guys, if only those pesky laws could be removed. So you simply ignored them.

  44. they want data... give it to them by charnov · · Score: 1

    Sign a petition http://wh.gov/ll6wj

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  45. Flag burning by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered about the fuss about flag burning.

    As I learned it long ago, burning is the only official way to destroy a soiled, damaged US flag.

    -- hendrik

    1. Re:Flag burning by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Yes but there even then it is to be done in a respectful manner not the dip and gasoline set ablaze and drag on ground that is usually associated with flag burning. Even then using the flag as speech as in burning it in a disrespectful manner is constitutionally protected and the US flag code does not impose penalties for violating anything in it. For more info read US code Title 36 Chapter 10 for the Flag Code.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Flag burning by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification.

      -- hendrik

  46. Backdoor by nemored · · Score: 1

    So now we know what _NSAKEY was really for...

  47. Crooked politicians under threat of blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of COURSE politicians secretly approved continuance of this program after it was started. Of COURSE they're going to defend it.

    If they don't, they know that the NSA will leak their personal secrets. The affairs. The under the table money. The obscene internet searches. You know what nasty things Diane Feinstein searched for from her home Friday night? The NSA does? You know what Lindsey Grahm says in emails to little boys? The NSA does.

    The NSA has these guys in their pockets. They have every citizen in the USA in their pockets. They have the power to ruin the life of any citizen who gets in their way.

  48. Obama's Favorite Target: The U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Money is the blood of a dictatorship.

    In order to solidify the Obama Dictatorship, money is needed and fast.

    PRISM provides the details for forgery, identity theft, and many other ethical and moral and legal abuses in the name of supplying Obama and his unelected government officials with the money they need.

    These moneys will be rendered from each legal citizen of the U.S.A. into Obama's and his unelected government officials with open arms.

    Looks like Obama-boy has got a hell of an itch i.e. cocaine and heroine addiction and a taste for male prostitutes !

    With a President like Obama, the legal citizens and elected government of the U.S.A. needs to be planning ... the death of the current President and his unelected government officials.

    Red Dawn Coming

    1. Re:Obama's Favorite Target: The U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This program was started in Dec 2006, Jan 2007.

      There may be another civil war, but it will still be with a bunch of corrupt buttheads screaming that they are allowed to do whatever they want to the rest of us.

  49. It's not that I don't care by FalleStar · · Score: 2

    I see a lot of people here saying how Americans don't care that their rights are being violated and that we're too stupid to realize it, this is true in most cases, I agree. Let me be clear, it's not that I am not aware, and it's certainly that I don't care, it's that I am a realist. My opinion isn't going to amount to anything to the powers that be that are able to get a project like this underway, so I don't generally vocalize my opposition to horrible abominations such as this when I see them.

    I have enough going on in my life right now that affects me everyday as it is. I don't have the time to protest this, and if I did have the time, quite honestly I'd rather spend it doing something that I enjoy with the people that I love. I am completely opposed to the Big Brother direction that the US government has taken. If I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of having an impact on whether or not this project would take place then I would gladly try to do my part to protest it. In my logical mind though, I know that in all likeliness, this data-mining operation won't end up having a direct impact on my life and I have no say in whether or not it takes place anyways.

    1. Re:It's not that I don't care by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Complete BS! You MAKE time for what's important to you!

      Maybe you can't stop this program here and now, but this is hardly the only civil liberties abuse that this government is perpetrating. Every little thing you do helps out. Even if you can't actively participate in protests, you CAN lend support to the liberty movement in other ways.

      If you're a nerd, offer to help people out with using Linux, TOR, encryption, MAC address spoofing, anonymous cell phones and other technical solutions for privacy. You can also divert some of your financial resources to organizations fighting the fight on your behalf. I'm sure you know about EFF. You might also consider:

      ACLU
      Tenth Amendment Center
      Young Americans for Liberty
      Center for Constitutional Rights
      EPIC

      I understand your frustration with trying to work the system at the federal level, but just because your vote in federal elections doesn't count, and your DC representatives are unresponsive, do NOT give me this BS about how you can't do ANYTHING to effect change. Working federal elections IS a waste of time, but many state governments are pushing back against federal overreach. e.g. marijuana legalization, rejection of federal firearms laws, anti-NDAA legislation, etc. Maybe you CAN influence a local, state or county election.

      Those are just a few ideas. If you refuse to do anything, then it's obvious that you DON'T care.

    2. Re:It's not that I don't care by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Excellent post, but I'm curious what reason you have to endorse this "Tenth Amendment Center;" the rest of the organizations you listed are reputable — I've heard of them (and donate to them, as with ACLU), they have a Wikipedia article, a news search of their name produces hits (outside of their own blog), or some combination of these — none of which apply to TAC.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  50. The Libertarian Party sez... by TheSync · · Score: 1

    The Libertarian Party says..

    "Full repeal of FISA, the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and massive downsizing of federal spy agencies is the only answer," said [Geoffrey J. Neale, chair of the Libertarian Party]. "Not maybe. Not later. Now. This will stop the incremental yet rapid decline of our privacy and civil liberties, put a check on government power, and help to ensure that every American is afforded due process and justice if charged with a crime."

    1. Re:The Libertarian Party sez... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      As comment on an article about the government outsourcing data collection (because that is what this effectively is), you post a party position that is only an incentive to outsource it even more?

      Come back when the LP starts taking a stance against corporate espionage on citizens.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  51. Fight Data with Data by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

    One way to deal with this is called spoofing. Hence, create and use apps which flood the systems with data. Make most of the data look real and seed it with disinformation. Use switchboard and find all people whose name is like yours. Go to the post office and put in change of address requests from your address to others with the same name. Create connections to organizations and people who are subversive. Make random harmless acts which will arose suspicion in order to create false alarms in the system, e.g take pictures of bridges and high rises. In other words, exercise your rights. Encourage others to follow suite. The liberties you save today are those that you will have for tomorrow. Fundamentally, most governments want you to create your own constraints and cage you without them having to do much. If they come for you, they would come for you anyway.
    As pointed out during the first Iraq war, look at the break down of soldiers and people. 20% of Peuro Ricans had family in the armed forces. 15% of African Americans. 10% of Whites. 5% of Asians. 2% of Senators/Representatives/Governors and 0.001% of CEOs of Fortune 100 companies.
    Shit, is this a great company or what? I can sit on my ass in Mama's basement and have others fight and die. All I have to do is wave my flag and shut up. Let the soldiers ask about medical care from exposure to uranium depleted dust from their VA Man!

  52. I just can't understand you guys by dbIII · · Score: 2

    You elected a constitutional lawyer FFS and you expect a dramatic change? What you got is someone to continue the job of the previous President who just happens to turn up for work 400% more often (a guess based on how Playboy Prince Bush always seemed to be on vacation) and take responsibility for his own actions (Baby Bush pretended not to order assassinations by drone). Any changes you get are going to be slow careful ones. Even the health care that was ranted about didn't go anywhere near as far as what Nixon suggested (that boil has been festering untreated for a long time).

  53. I read the blurb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the blurb, and thought the Patriot act was doing this already. Then I thought: "Isn't Carnivore (and its follow-on Omnivore) and the rest of the seven eyes doing this already? And then I thought: Isn't Thin Thread already taking care of this? And then I thought: nope, they collect a lot from those, but this one might cover one or two emails plus detailed profiles that all of those other surveillance technologies don't touch. Its 2013 and not 1984, but it really is 1984.

  54. See, the new age prophecy is correct... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    2012 is not the end of the world. It is the beginning of a new world order.

    In fact every one is copying/learning the Chinese political system.

  55. Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is amazing how much Bill Gates loves working with the single party system in China.
    It is just like working with Bush and the neo-cons.

    1. Re:Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is the KING of Big Pharma too !! He is injecting every african and the money goes to Phizer et al lololo.

  56. What does a scanner see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does a scanner see? Into the head, into the heart? Does it see clearly, or darkly?

    PKD really was a brilliant man. Valis save us! :P

  57. It makes me giggle to think this is news. by Push+Latency · · Score: 1

    It's funny and weird to imagine thinking about this for the first time.

  58. Can I hire the NSA? by skaralic · · Score: 2

    The last slide shows a figure of $20 million per year for, basically, spying on the entire Internet. Is it just me or does $1.7mil/month seem kinds cheap to be storing and mining that amount of data... I guess since it's a gov't operation, the real cost is probably 20x higher than what they say it would be.

  59. so lets just accept it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and get fucked in the asshole like good sheeple, right? :) :) :) :)

  60. What would be the test? by planckscale · · Score: 1
    So ok yeah protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks by foreigners. I get it. Protecting U.S. citizens from internal threats such as bombings etc, I get it. But what does it take to be "disappeared" by the U.S. government (which was typical of the old Fascist governments) these days? Yeah everyday we're breaking some law some how, but we're being not thrown into jail or a camp because of minor infractions or voicing our opinions. Again, what does it take to be disappeared? Reveal top secret information such as identities of CIA agents -check - (didn't someone like Rove almost do time for this?) Reveal top secret communications between foreign states and diplomats? - check - that Manning guy's life is in ruins. Threaten and plot against the safety of government officials and the innocent public? Check - they took down some domestic cells recently. So pretty typically these types of actions protect the country (which I love don't get me wrong) and the public from real harm.

    As defined, Fascist ideology consistently invoked leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany as embodiments of the state and claimed indisputable power. So I suppose that in a sense what the NSA and CIA have become are Fascist governmental agencies in that they are the ones with indisputable power provided by the U.S. government. Not fascist in the sense of ethnic cleansing (some groups would dispute this notion as to the amount of their kind being imprisoned in massive jails) or monetary control, but in sheer power to do what it wants as long as it wants. And by the government absolving large corporations of wrongdoing by allowing surveillance of their systems, so that they can maintain their control shows something is twisted there.

    So it wouldn't it seem the real test to determine if the government, NSA, CIA, or branches or wings or whatever are fascist (indisputable power) would be to organize the people and shut down these agencies through peaceful means (voting)? I mean it would seem that the only true test to see if these entities are the ultimate authority would be to shut them down via the people's will - of, by, and for... - right? I mean a complete cut-off of funding and turning-off-the-power type closure.

    I'm not sure people are motivated or concerned enough. But if that test did take place, what would a failure look like? Mass jailing of citizens that support shutting down these entities? Massive economic punishment for supporters? Removal of the bills from the ballot? Bills not making it through congress? The Senate? At what point do we draw the distinction between what the government has become what we believe is good for us and what is right? Would we only know if we have a true democracy and true freedom from an oppressive government if the people actually did cut off, shutter, and board up one of these behemoths? I'm mean I'd like to take the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch's word for it that they're keeping the military and intelligence industrial complex in check. But reports like those from Tim Clemente and other intelligence leakers (who obviously have concern for what's taking place) are driving a lot more people towards action. Maybe this is a natural progression for which the human psyche does not enjoy the looming paranoia of a big brother or the secret indisputable powers that watch us all. We should all be grateful for those who are looking out for us and our children. But I thought I'd at least ask the question. What would be the test?

    --
    Namaste
  61. The worlds traffic *DID* flow thru the US by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time.... now if you'll excuse me I have some accounts to close and windows boxes to reformat.

  62. Next message from Teh Brigade ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get off Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple services and equipment --- right NOW.

    And if you think it's the "Tinfoil hat brigade" speaking, then you're even dumber than you were when you ignored their last message.

  63. A Perfect Record For 100+ Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when did the USA Federal Government prevent or stop a World War ?

    World War Zero ... AKA The Russo-Japan War. Nope !

    World War I ... AKA The War To End All Wars. Not a change !

    World War II ? Had all kinds of signals from 1936 to 1941 and missed them ALL. Losers !

    Korean War. Out To Pasture and caught with pants down !

    Vietnam War. Too drugged to know which way to go !

    Bush One War AKA Operation Desert Storm. Caught with pants down again !

    Clinton Wars [?} In the toilet with pants down again !

    Bush Jr. War One Part A ... Afganistan ... Without a clue.

    Bush Jr. War Two ... Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction except those we used !

    Bush Jr. War One Part B ... Afganistan ... Still without a clue but torturing wasn't it !

    Obama War ... Attack USA ... no clue no hope but lots of dope ... INTERCEPTION ! Nope !

    By and large the Federal Government is clueless and hopeless. With such a perfect track record I would say let them inspect my toilet paper I whipped my ass with because they would not be able to predict that Abraham Lincoln would be assassinated in 1865 with it.

    Fuck Obama.

  64. Surprised? by Nov8tr · · Score: 0

    I told all of you this years ago. What did you do? You gave me negative karma. I was right.

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  65. Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...or why Microsoft bought Skype?

  66. The Truth of It by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    Now that so much of the lid is coming off of a lot of the long-suspected abuses by the government under the "security" banner, where are all the usual snide trollings about "tin foil hats" and conspiracy nuts?

    The really sad part, the thing that would make Madison and Jefferson cry, is that it isn't Bush's fault, it isn't Obama's fault, or even Nixon's or J. Edgar Hoover's fault.

    It's OUR fault, for being such a collective lot of either lazy, gullible, complacent, self-absorbed sheep, or snotty pseudo-sophisticated hipster smarter-than-you "intellectuals".

    The bastards have won, the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's scrawled on, and we have no one but our collective selves to blame. /rant

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  67. Vote Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote "Give me some evidence..... the outcomes of political processes.... "

    2012 Video of RNC Teleprompter Showing Results of Scripted Voting Before Voting Finished

    This vote gave them unilateral power, essentially nullifying grassroots.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_ylYNbAlY

  68. Wow, you have no idea.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A neat site: http://www.dumblaws.com/

    Check your area (if US) and see how many you may be breaking. Then check your local Town Hall to see how many bylaws exist; then read then, it can be very entertaining; where I live there is a Sewage disposal rule (for what can go down your drain), and I kid you not, it actually has a huge list of what is not allowed and "human waste" is in that list.

  69. Yes! But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd have to shoot you afterwards.

  70. Other interpretations.. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1

    I do wonder if this document is authentic. It looks like it was created by a teenager. Look at the PRISM logo, for example, which looks like it was made on MS Paint. Why are the list of companies bizarrely represented on a graph with one axis?

    Also, what about the cost? $20 million a year is nothing. In government, that's probably the total cost to buy a laser printer. I can't imagine a massive data mining operation costing less than a few hundred million a year.

    Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not blindly saying it isn't authentic either. I'm saying it *may* not be authentic. Since we don't really know anything except for newspaper reports based on one very sloppy looking document, I think some skepticism is healthy.

    It could also be NSA disinformation of course. Or disinformation from another agency or country! It could be a legit program presented as an unauthentic looking document to spread skepticism!

    If it is true, the question is how to stop the bastards from doing it. If it is true, I hope they're as woeful at gathering data as they are at displaying it in Powerpoint presentations.

    1. Re:Other interpretations.. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      There's a very real chance that this is a "leak" designed on the fly to discredit those currently talking about the verizon leak. If that is the case, it well may backfire as I doubt they will actually be able to discredit it in the public's perception, it's just too plausible. Assuming it is a false leak, they might also use it to put pressure on Google et al to cooperate, a "Everyone thinks you're a ho so now you might as well sleep with me, and I'll look after you" kinda thing. Or it could be a total hoax, which changes nothing except where it came from.

  71. You are the perfect result! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you, sir, no disrespect intended, are exactly the desired outcome of the New Fascism.

    People who *choose* to function within the desired parameters without kicking up a fuss.

    Cheaper and easier than heavy-handed slavery is self-imposed slavery.

    Work it backwards through this thought exercise: Say you are a lazy ass warlord whose every need and whim is cared for by a legion of slaves. How do you keep the slaves from rebelling and cutting off your supply of free stuff, (and your head)?

    Well, you can iron fist it; keep them all in chains and make no bones about it. Problem is, this always seems to fail over time. You want to be a lazy ass warlord without having to worry about uprisings.

    So instead: You install a belief system which keeps people from thinking that there is anything more to be had in life other than the current shitty options.

    You program them to be ever at odds with each other, never trust each other, so nobody can gather on any subject to agree. (Rebellions need cohesion to work).

    You feed them crap food which restricts the ability to grow physically and mentally strong.

    You install a money system which can be rigorously controlled so that people don't have the time or energy to think of anything other than keeping afloat. Build it so that only those who wouldn't rebel anyway to succeed.

    Keep people scared and emotional so that their limbic systems are always engaged, preventing them from using what is left of their brains to think rationally or critically.

    Give them all cell phones, so that their social gatherings become primarily virtual and stripped of vital layers of human communication. Also, keeping their heads fuzzed out with electromagnetic soup.

    And a bunch of other stuff. (Like infecting those who steadfastly refuse to get in line with stupid conspiracy-nut memes like the "Actors in the Boston Bombings" crap so nobody takes them seriously.)

    Do all that, and voila! You don't need gestapo soldiers to keep the slaves hauling coal for the man. (Though you install a few of those soldiers anyway, just to be safe).

    Done.

    So imagine how a rebellion might arise. How would it defeat all of those control measures and come into focus?

    So far, it hasn't.

  72. Who's the real "threat"? by moeinvt · · Score: 2

    Seems clear that the government views the American people as the real "threat". A threat to the power and privileges that they've granted themselves.
    Anyone that believes we should grant this government MORE power (e.g. to deal with "climate change", to get more involved with healthcare, to regulate free speech or to limit firearms freedom) needs to pay attention to stories like this and then spend some serious time examining their beliefs.

    1. Re:Who's the real "threat"? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Anyone that believes we should grant this government MORE power (e.g. to deal with "climate change", to get more involved with healthcare, to regulate free speech or to limit firearms freedom) needs to pay attention to stories like this and then spend some serious time examining their beliefs.

      While we're at it, let's not give the government the power to build roads or have law enforcement. The idea that the best way to limit the power of government is to deprive it as much as possible of all powers is a simplistic libertarian notion. You can have a government that is not at all involved in healthcare but is an even worse surveillance state than we have now. Before the Civil War we had a government that was not at all involved in health care but enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. Get the difference?

  73. Iraq connection? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

    On what might seem to be a completely separate note, I've been wondering for a long time how the US military managed to turn the tide against the insurgency in Iraq. For years it looked like the US was losing or at least not winning the war. And then something happened. My pet hypothesis has been that the US military used automated real-time surveillance and filtering to pinpoint the location of individual high value insurgents and then send soldiers or drones to arrest or kill them until the insurgency basically fizzled out because all the competent insurgents were either dead or smart enough to get out.

    This PRISM program was allegedly established and hooked up to Microsoft in 2007, which IIRC is pretty much when the tide turned against the insurgency in Iraq. Coincidence, perhaps.

    I'm not necessarily saying that I think that the insurgents used Hotmail and MSN although many of them may have, but they probably used a limited number of Arabic mail and chat services that the NSA could have been hooked up to in much the same way that they're allegedly hooked up to the most common American services today.

    I wonder if this is a case of the government turning its proverbial guns on its own citizenry. If you have a really good hammer things have a tendency to begin to look like nails.

  74. are you with the terrorists or child molesters? by beefoot · · Score: 1

    If we start questioning the legality of this type of privacy intrusion, the government will accuse us with on terrorist's or child molester's side.

  75. It can't be for Liberty by Nova+Express · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    That's one of the codewords that gets Obama's IRS to audit you.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  76. WP doesn't want to publish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of a sudden, Washington Post has a lengthy story about this.
    It almost seems like they had this information for a while, and were unwilling to publicise it.

  77. It's shit like this... by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    I'm a die-hard techie, but it's shit like this that seriously makes me consider unplugging myself from the Internet and phone services.

    Guess I'd better give Richard Stallman a call and see if he'll let me crash at his house for a while.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  78. Re: these dastardly terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you disagree, you are one of " these dastardly terrorists"

    Posted anonymously, not that it will do me any good if Slashdot is handing over information.

  79. US helped defeat the Germans/Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US helped defeat the Germans/Nazi, not because they didn't like their ideals. They just didn't want to share the world with them.

  80. All Caps Post -- Drone Strike by Dareth · · Score: 2

    Could we get automated drone strikes against the real terrorist who post in all caps?
    Think of the children who may never lean proper capitalization because of this rampant abuse.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  81. OK, time to obfuscate by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 1

    Let's build an open source program that randomly searches words at random intervals and follows links to random depths in a background sandboxed browser that uses a standard browser identifier, from a regularly updated dictionary built from words in non-fiction current events books and news publications. Root your android phones, and build an app that will silently call/text random other users in the "free/unlimited" calling windows set by you.

    If intent is still necessary to convict, and freedom of speech/association are still rights we have (I know those are big caveats), use of the apps alone wouldn't be grounds to convict for anything, and render data sets for the watchers much larger and arguably useless.

  82. From bash.org by phorm · · Score: 1

    It reminds me of this post from bash.org

      I should bomb something ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
      Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
      I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
    *** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
      We saw it anyway.
    *** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )

  83. Don't forget the license plate readers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the already forgotten license plate readers. That uprising has faded. I'll bet they're banking that this one will fade to.

  84. Since 2007 hmm? Glad that helped stop Boston Bomb by ArghBlarg · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, it didn't.
    So don't let any government official of bureaucrat use the excuse governments need this "... to stop terrorism", ever again.

    --
    ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
  85. A seachange against people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What really bugs me about the NSA spying is that it changes “presumption of innocence” to a “presumption of suspicion”. How do you prove the you are innocent? It is trying to prove the negative which a bad place to argue from.

  86. Notice That Jobs Had to Die by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

    Before Apple allowed this.

    Then it was Cook who opened up his cheeks...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  87. Unconvincing Slides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it strike anyone else as strange that the Guardian slides and the Washington Post slides differ slightly? The redactions differ as well. Tried searching for that agency name?

  88. Wish Romney had won, so we could get some oppositi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wish Romney had won, so we could get some opposition to this.

  89. "Call me Trim Tab" -- Bucky Fuller by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    Sometimes we need to do what we can, even when it is small and the results uncertain, like in the Christmas song "The Little Drummer Boy (or Carol of the Drum)". That is somewhat similar to Bucky Fuller's idea of being a "Trim tab".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_tab#Trim_tab_as_a_metaphor

    Also, a book like "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies " by Scott E. Page, makes clear how ideas are additive. So, just because a million people are spouting the same obsolete or misleading idea in comments somewhere, that does not generally make a useful new idea somewhere else less valuable. An advanced AI emerging out of, say, the NSA will probably just sort through billions of online posts, classifying them into various categories. So, it may be important to add a new category, even with just one post somewhere.

    Granted, we do not know what built-in instincts such an AI will have initially, but history appears (from the fossil record) to be full of examples of species (systems) that have evolved beyond their genetics (configuration) at some point in time. The NSA (or CIA, FBI, DHS or whoever) will likely not be able to contain what they will most likely be creating. And if they don't do it, others are probably going to do something similar probably in any case.

    So, perhaps we can just do what we can and hope for the best as we, in some sense, stumble into the hubris of creating new AI "gods" as our (Hans Moravec) "mind children"? Related stories of AIs taking over:
    http://www.alteich.com/oldsite/answer.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
    http://localroger.com/prime-intellect/
    http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
    (Entoverse) http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=5
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Names
    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheLastQuestion

    Other dystopian and utopian alternatives:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)
    (The Skills of Xanadu) http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51&lpg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Of these and many others, I do not know what we will end up with. Maybe even all of them in various communities throughout the universe someday?
    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/IDIC

    From a related essay by me:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
    "This approximately 60 page document is a ramble about ways to ensure the CIA (as well as other big organizations) remains (or becomes) accountable to human needs and the needs of healthy, prosperous, joyful, secure, educated communities. The primarily suggestion is to encourage a paradigm shift away from scarcity thinking & competition thinking towards abundance thinking & cooperation thinking within the CIA and other organizations. I suggest that shift could be encouraged in part by providing publicly accessible free "intelligence" tools and other publicly accessible free information that all people (including in the CIA and elsewhere) can, if they want, use to better connect the dots about global issues and see those issues from multiple perspectives, to provide a better context for providing broad policy advice. It links that effort to bigger efforts to transform o

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  90. Lessons from a People's History by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    So many questionable assumptions in your post... If you are referring to US American history around the time of the American Revolution, quite a bit of the Colonial population fled to Canada to remain under the rule of the British Crown (as "Loyalists"). Canada got rid of slavery about 40 years sooner than the USA, never had a terrible Civil War, treat their indigenous people better, and now have universal health care. In many ways, the British were more socially advanced than the rough colonists. See also:
    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

    Of those people who stayed in the American Colonies, at least one of his own officers (Colonel Lewis Nicola) asked George Washington to become their new King, but he refused.
    http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/rule_of_law2.html

    The major reason for the Colonies' revolt was banking policy -- that the British wanted to prevent American colonies from issuing their own currency, which caused an economic depression in the Colonies. so, a bad economy and high unemployment caused the revolt more than anything else. The reason the British wanted to do this was to collect more revenue to pay back debts incurred for the recent war with France over western territories. So, the end result was that the American colonists got the French territories without having to pay for the war that took them from France (and the natives). Both Britain and France were destabilized by such war debts, although France was worse off, leading towards the French Revolution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
    http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/economic_perspectives/1981/ep_mar_apr1981_part4_wood.cfm
    http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/colonial_script.htm

    As for US interventions abroad since, most were just to ensure profits to specific wealthy investors, according to Marine Major General Smedley Butler:
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    On the partisan politics of this disclosure and the Verizon one. Conservatives now are blaming Obama and Progressives. Liberals blame Bush and Republicans. Congress says it has been going on for seven years, so why worry now? What a mess. Somehow I don't feel much is going to change from this revelation though, because, to anyone paying attention, it is not that unexpected. Carnivore and Echelon did similar things over a decade ago, plus they are supposedly arrangements by US agencies to exchange data with other countries that can spy on US citizens without issues.

    As is suggested here, gradual changes are rarely resisted:
    "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"
    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
    "To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it -- please try to believe me -- unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' that no 'patriotic German' could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  91. Nothing New by otaku244 · · Score: 1

    I mean... did everyone forget Trailblazer?
    ...Thomas Andrews Drake?
    ... or the friggn' Born Trilogy?
    When these guys set their sights on something they want, they'll get it as long as no laws exist to explicitly prevent them from making it happen. PRISM is just the next generation domestic surveillance. The next time we hear about it, I'm sure it will be called... I don't know...Looking Glass. The question is: will this be the time when the people finally stand up and say "enough"?
    And what have we had "enough" of? None of this in the past has translated into meaningful legal reformation because this is a horrendously hard area to debate.

    --
    Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
  92. Verizon already sells call data to advertisers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised nobody has commented on the similarity to what Verizon is doing for commercial purposes -- selling call data to advertisers...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/verizon-precision-market-insights_n_1971265.html

  93. Reminds me of Accellion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Nuff sed.