Facebook and Microsoft Disclose Government Requests For User Data

wiredmikey writes "Facebook and Microsoft say they received thousands of requests for information from U.S. authorities last year but are prohibited from listing a separate tally for security-related requests or secret court orders related to terror probes. The two companies have come under heightened scrutiny since reports leaked of a vast secret Internet surveillance program U.S. authorities insist targets only foreign terror suspects and is needed to prevent attacks. Facebook said Friday it had received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for user data affecting 18,000 to 19,000 accounts during the second half of last year and Microsoft said it had received 6,000 to 7,000 requests affecting 31,000 to 32,000 accounts during the same period." Meanwhile, an article at the Guardian is suggesting the government may have better targets to pursue than Edward Snowden. "[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country, yet a review of Booz Allen's own history suggests that the government should be investigating his former employer, rather than the whistleblower."

Comments

Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

"[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country"

No. The people responsible for spying on American citizens are the ones who have betrayed their country and the public interest. They're the ones who should be caught, tried, and imprisoned. Government officials who violate the US constitution are traitors. People like Snowden are heroes.

Re:Treason

[guruevi]

And given the almost religious "patriotic" response after 9/11 within the US I would say, 2,000 more "patriots" would gladly give their lives in order for the government not to be oppressing the rest of the world like this. Right?

Re:Treason

[girlintraining]

o. The people responsible for spying on American citizens are the ones who have betrayed their country and the public interest.

I doubt they see it that way. And in any case, it's easy to blame somebody else... or a group of people... but let me ask: Did you vote in the last election? Did you write to your congress critters at any point during the long procession of decisions that has led us to this point? Held up a sign on a street corner? Had a meaningful discussion with a stranger about this? Met with anyone to discuss the problem? Democracy doesn't run very well on apathy... it's rather like pouring diesel into a gas tank... the results aren't pretty and the engine usually dies as a result.

They're the ones who should be caught, tried, and imprisoned.

Might I suggest that since we already have the highest incarceration rate of any country on the planet we start looking to solutions to social problems that don't involve sending people to our criminal education centers? Because that's pretty much what prison is: It's a place you go to meet like-minded people and learn all kinds of shit you wouldn't otherwise learn... and are then normalized to the idea that what you did was okay. And then you're released back into society where you're promptly told you have few housing or employment options, no friends, and very often just the clothes on your back. Oh... and a fresh new education.

. Government officials who violate the US constitution are traitors.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom â" go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" -- Samuel Adams

If you aren't participating, you're part of the problem. As part of the problem, you must be a traitor. As a traitor, you should be executed. (grabs a big rock) So, how do you want to die, sinner?! ... In other news, extreme statements like calling people "traitors" can result in extreme reactions, like stoning to death. Of course, a more civilized discourse would avoid using words like "traitor" to describe government officials carrying out their official duties, and perhaps might focus instead on the actual constitutional definition of what a traitor is... since you did invoke the Constitution afterall. Since you're obviously unfamiliar with the relevant passage...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

People like Snowden are heroes.

Snowden himself disagrees with your assessment.

Re:Treason

[Darinbob]

And the 25,000 brave drivers who died on the road, who can forget them. That's 2000 a month. We should outlaw automobiles.

Re:Treason

[93 Escort Wagon]

Dumb thing is - people forget that there were plenty of clues noticed before 9/11 with which, if it weren't for bureaucracy, the plot might very well have been prevented. That's with the laws that were already in place at the time.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about 9/11 ? This country can't afford to lose another brave 2,000 in this war, or any more buildings.

Oooh, is that what passes for insightful nowdays?

US Casualties in Iraq -- 4488
US Casualties in Afghanistan -- 2220

If this country cannot afford to lose more people in wars, maybe they should stay out of wars?

Re:Treason

[hairyfeet]

Red herring and frankly a lame excuse, we lose more people to car wrecks in your average year and if they really gave a rat's ass about that we wouldn't have a border so pointless you could drive a nuke through the thing and which is largely controlled by drug cartels.

Nope if 9/11 wouldn't have happened it would have been something else, from COINTELPRO to Iran Contra the government has been getting nastier by the year, 9/11 simply gave them a way to slam on the accelerator and get away with doing it all at once instead of a little here and a little there. It no coincidence that the USA no longer has any left wing, just right and extreme right, the elite learned from the mistakes of Nixon and bought up all the MSM so that anyone who isn't already on the payroll might as well be invisible.

I do have to say it did give me a bit of schadenfreude to see so many have their bubbles burst by finding or Mr "Yes we can!" was really "Yes we can! (But I won't) " while it amazes me how many sign the little petitions and still buy the bullshit when its ALL just kayfabe. Its like what Ventura said after being in politics, that just like pro wrestling when the camera is on you play up how much you hate the other guy and when the camera is off? you are both having lunch together and laughing about it.

So I'm sure I'll get hate for saying this by those that still by the bullshit but I hate to break the news to ya, but you CAN NOT fix a corrupted system by working within that system, why? Because its corrupted silly! You can sign your little petitions and wave your little cardboard signs in the free speech zone 20 blocks from the cameras, they will just laugh and keep doing what they are doing. After all what are you gonna do, fire them? Then they get a cushy lobbying job and one of their frat bros get to play politician for a few years, big deal.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

And the 25,000 brave drivers who died on the road, who can forget them. That's 2000 a month. We should outlaw automobiles.

Terrorism doesn't even make the top ten causes of death in the USA. I say we think about spying on and data mining every single American when it does make the top ten or even the top one hundred and in the meantime we get to work on fixing the things we SHOULD be scared of (see below). The reason given for intercepting and recording all of our communications is obviously a con and yet so many are going for it so easily. I guess the fact that our government is spying on us exactly as a totalitarian govt. would do is a lot to take in. It's much easier to deal with if we make believe that it's done for our safety.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
  Heart disease: 597,689
  Cancer: 574,743
  Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
  Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
  Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
  Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
  Diabetes: 69,071
  Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
  Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
  Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm

Re:Treason

[sackofdonuts]

Have to agree. Obama is actually complicit with all this so should be brought up on charges. In fact Obama more than others since he explicitly states he will uphold the U.S. Constitution when he takes the job.

Re:Treason

[1000101]

People like Snowden are heroes

Snowden himself disagrees with your assessment.

Charles Barkley doesn't think he's a role model either, but guess what... he is. When people do extraordinary things, there is a significant chance that millions of people will hold such actions in high regard and elevate said person to 'role model' or 'hero' status. Snowden is a hero for the simple fact that he ousted illegal activity by a government organization. If the actions weren't illegal, but were just 'super secret', Snowden would be a traitor and should hang. But no, all he did was risk his own life to expose quite possibly the worst betrayal of trust the U.S. government has ever bestowed upon its citizens.

Re:Treason

[osu-neko]

I'll get hate for pointing this out but then again common sense seems to be poison to the politically correct, but if most of your troubles are coming from one group, how about keeping more of the group from coming over and keeping a closer eye on the ones you got, how about that?

You do realize that the majority of mass killings and other terrorist incidents in the U.S. have been the result of the actions of right-wing white male Christians, right?

Re:Treason

[bkmoore]

We had ample warning prior to 9-11. The FBI was even keeping track of Mohammad Atah while he was taking flying lessons in Florida. It was the higher-ups in D.C. who didn't take the threat seriously and refused to act on this information.

Another example, the shoe bomber, who was thwarted at the last minute by passengers. His father had grown suspicious about his son, and warned the U.S. embassy in his country. Another real lead that was not followed up on.

After every successful terrorist attack, there is always some soul searching about how this attack could have been prevented. I don't see how spying on Americans by default would have changed things on 9-11. In the end, people have to make decisions based on the incomplete information that is available and chose which leads could be true threats and which ones are probably not. That's where the break down in U.S. security is; effectively interpreting the information available. Not that there is not enough information in the first place.

If the U.S. really wants to be safe from Muslim extremists, the U.S. should focus on building better relations with the Muslim community. The first step would be to stop betraying those values we preach to others. The second step would be to improve access for young people int he middle east to educational opportunities in the U.S. through an expanded visa and scholarship program. The third step would be to improve primary and secondary education in the middle east. I know schools aren't as sexy as an armed Global Hawk drone. But the best information comes from people on the ground who are in contact with potential terrorists. If the U.S. were seen in a more positive light, we would get better information as a result. Lastly, intervening in Syria and taking sides in yet another middle-eastern civil war, is just plain stupid.

Re:Treason

[bkmoore]

Pragmatic response would be, the best information about threats would come from people in "that group." If you want access to useful information on which to build good intelligence, you would need to have good relationships with "that group." Or you could be like Israel, and put "them" behind a fence, and watch your reliable information sources dry up and your cost of collecting information rise exponentially. The Maginot Line defense seldom works in the real world.

Re:Treason

[crutchy]

This country can't afford to lose another brave 2,000 in this war

if those 2,000 brave fools hadn't signed up in the first place they wouldn't have died

and for anyone who thinks that without the brave fools terrorists would take over the world... wake the fuck up and get a clue dipshits... when you invade and blow up other countries, you piss people off and they fly planes into your buildings... so... stop blowing people up and you won't need to worry... it's not rocket science for fuck's sake

Re:Treason

[gomiam]

You don't understand, you can't be 100% safe.

Fixed that for you. Since you can't be 100% safe, safety is not an excuse for whole sale spying.

I don't understand this

[FuzzNugget]

"[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country"

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

Re:I don't understand this

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Wait. I thought Snowden was a liar. So how could he be a traitor to [USA] public interest?

Re:I don't understand this

[girlintraining]

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

It gets better. Mr. Clapper said, under oath and before Congress, that Snowden "didn't have the access" necessary to make his claims. He then goes on to state that he's a traitor. Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.

I suspect this is the NSA version of "We don't have a problem and we're working to fix it as quickly as possible," and by fixing, of course we mean throwing someone under the bus. Since Snowden is at the bottom of the food chain, we'll start there, and continue feeding people to the lions at progressively higher levels of the bureauacracy until the "problem" goes away. And the problem of course isn't that the NSA is doing this, but that they got pants'd by some kid. Remember, it's not wrong if it's legal! -_-

Re:I don't understand this

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

That is what happens when the people in power become convinced of their own righteousness. It is not an evil plot, it is simply the natural result of fact that basically no one ever thinks of themselves as the bad guy. So if they are the good guys, then whatever they do must also be good. They convince themselves that any harmful side-effects truly are minimal (easy to do when the side-effects don't impact them directly) and are a necessary cost for the greater good.

Re:I don't understand this

[Darinbob]

It's the NSA version of saying what is necessary to appease the congress. Normally they only have to deal with a very tiny committee of inner circle friends, like Feinstein. But every so often some of the sheep in congress wake up and start asking questions, and it makes the security people nervous.

Re:I don't understand this

[blackraven14250]

Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.

Snowden made a large list of claims. If just one of them is true, or even partially true, he can both not have the access he claims to have and still be considered a traitor. I like what Snowden did, but I'm pointing out a really obvious flaw in your logic.

Re:I don't understand this

[osu-neko]

Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.

Snowden made a large list of claims. If just one of them is true, or even partially true, he can both not have the access he claims to have and still be considered a traitor. I like what Snowden did, but I'm pointing out a really obvious flaw in your logic.

The really obvious flaw in your logic is that it requires more than the claim to be true. If I claim the US is secretly recording the content of conversations between Americans (based on my personal speculation), that doesn't make me a traitor, even if it's true. On the other hand, I'm arguably a traitor if the government gives me access to that information and I then betray my NDA/oath/security clearance and reveal it. He really did need to have the access he claims, or it's not really treason, because he's not revealing anything, he's just speculating and saying frankly what speculators on Slashdot have been saying for years. They don't all become traitors if their speculation turns out to be correct.

Snowden..

[houbou]

did the right thing. The truth is, I believe that MANY more Americans would be in favor of the government sifting through the information IF they were informed of such processes. The problem is transparency, or the lack of it actually. Covertly operating as they are doing, to me, is the real issue. That being said, I personally think that regardless of transparency, I've always assumed Big Brother was watching more than it should, but I've never let it bothered me because it would be just much ado about nothing.

Re:Snowden..

[Anonymous Coward]

A head in the sand argument to this spying doesn't hold water, the "I don't do anything wrong, so no problem" argument. It is a problem for everyone simply because people you support can be spyed on, and the information can then be used against them. If a republican government is in power, they can spy on the democrats for example. Objectors to any government policy can be spyed on and their cause undermined. This is a massive problem for America. Sitting here in Australia the media is reporting this quite differently to what you're seeing in America. There is no "traitor vs hero" reporting, just the facts of US surveillance and a sprinkling of respect tor the rebellious American, Edward Snowden.

Re:Guardian article is a reach

[BlueStrat]

Like a lot of folks on Wall Street, the Guardian sees two points and draws a trend line. Only it's more like one point so far. The US Government intentionally, across multiple departments & agencies, with malice aforethought, massively violating the US Constitution and the Rights of it's citizens in nearly every way possible. Well, except house troops in our homes. We can give them that. For now..

FTFY

Strat

read carefully

[stenvar]

If you read carefully, saying that specific requests have come in for 20000 users doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet. Past reports and disclosures on NSA activities (as well as the activities of other spy agencies) suggest that this is likely routine practice. Facebook doesn't even deny this, and of course even if they did, it's questionable whether such a denial was meaningful. In addition, it's clear that the NSA and other agencies actively collect data from all open sources that they can. And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.

So I don't know what these disclosures are supposed to accomplish. They really don't change anything. At the root of the problem is really that there isn't enough transparency and that people have lost trust. What we need and should demand is complete legal, fiscal, and legislative transparency on our spy organizations, what they are legally allowed to do, who sets limits on them, and how much we're spending on it. I don't see why understanding in such general terms what these organizations do should hinder their ability to catch terrorists. And if such disclosures really interfere with their capabilities, that suggests by itself that they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Re:read carefully

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet.

Apparently SSL encryption at all of the large internet corps is handled by dedicated front-ends - and the network between the SSL front-ends and the real guts of entities like facebook, google, etc are all in the clear. That makes for a perfect location for the NSA to drop their sniffers in, no need to compromise any SSL certs at all, no forward secrecy, etc, just wide open traffic perfect for raw harvesting.

And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.

I think that bears repeating - the NSA ain't building data silos (there are others, like one in san antonio, texas) that consume as much electricity as a small city for nothing. They are collecting literally tons of data on us, its gotta be coming from somewhere.

Re:read carefully

[girlintraining]

And if such disclosures really interfere with their capabilities, that suggests by itself that they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Not necessarily. There's good reason to capture all kinds of metadata ahead of time, and store it for a period of time; The most practical argument is that it reduces the cost of executing search warrants. Anyone who's worked in IT knows that the moment you have a database, people are going to want access, and eventually, mirrors of at least some of that data is going to start cropping up elsewhere on the network. It'll be exported to spreadsheets, it'll be handed to the building maintenance people, it'll be pushed out for the network engineers. There is a lot of redundant data floating around on a network, simply because it's faster and more convenient to simply trap what you need and keep your own copies, perhaps with notes or additional metadata, that is separate from the primary source.

A lot of this "big scary NSA" non-sense is based on a misconception that just because the NSA is capturing this information means they're using it, or even looking at it. In all likelihood, yes, they probably know what your last Facebook status was. In all likelihood, no human, or even an automated bot searching for keywords, is accessing it. It's simply recorded, shoved into a database, and forgotten until it expires from the super secret anti-terrorist caching system of doom.

That said...

At the root of the problem is really that there isn't enough transparency and that people have lost trust.

And this is the part of the equation that is troubling. The NSA has broken its social contract with the people it was supposed to be protecting. Trust has been damaged. There are legitimate reasons why the NSA would be keeping secrets from the American public. National security really is at stake for a lot of what the NSA does. That's no exaggeration. What's been exaggerated is what is being considered National security.

The United States has certain constitutional obligations; Specifically that the government should be transparent as much as possible. Now this is always a balancing act... and sometimes both sides are going to get it wrong -- the public will demand something they really ought not to have, and the government will hold back what they really shouldn't. This push and pull by itself is normal. It's expected. It's democracy "Working As Designed." The problem is, in the last 12 years or so, the balance, well... isn't anymore.

The government, as a whole, not just the NSA but the whole government superstructure, has been moving towards a heightened level of security (some would say paranoia), and been locking out the public from areas traditionally left open. In the short term, this isn't a threat to the democratic way of life, but it's been going on now for 12 years. Osama Bin Laden is dead. The few remnants of 9/11 now sit in a shitty museum in New York and scattered monuments throughout the country. It's long dead and gone; It is no longer justification for the present state of affairs -- Yet the present state of affairs has persisted.

And right now, the NSA is caught right in the middle of the public debate over where that tipping point should be between the public's need to know, and the government's need for national security. And frankly, it's done a shit job in the public relations department -- a formerly secretive and highly respected intelligence agency now looks like a bunch of incompetent assclowns John-Wayne-ing their way through the private data of Americans, and nary a fuck is given about whether it's right or wrong.

The NSA, as an organization, needs to return to its roots, which is specifically and only providing intelligence assets and support to operations abroad. Domestic operations should be the providence of the FBI, and foreign operations under the direction of the CIA... and both of those organizations should separate as much as is practical,

Re:read carefully

[the eric conspiracy]

The electrical consumption of the the Utah installation is estimated roughly at $40 million/y. At 0.07 per kwhr that's roughly 500 million kwh / yr.

Google as a company is believed to use about 2 billion kWh / yr.

So we can probably say just Google will have 4x the data of this site.

Re:read carefully

[stenvar]

A lot of this "big scary NSA" non-sense is based on a misconception that just because the NSA is capturing this information means they're using it, or even looking at it.

The fact that this information is easily available at all, and potentially without a court order, is a threat to our political system. You can be sure that the president gets national security reports on all major political figures, both allies and foes alike. Tax evasion, extramarital affairs, homosexuality, illegitimate children, drug habits, whatever are all considered security relevant and would of course be reported. And all of those also happen to be wonderful means for exerting pressure on people to vote his way or drop out of political races. This is too powerful a political weapon to give to the executive branch.

Re:read carefully

[Agripa]

Not necessarily. There's good reason to capture all kinds of metadata ahead of time, and store it for a period of time; The most practical argument is that it reduces the cost of executing search warrants.

The NSA also would not want anybody else to know what their search criteria is. They are at least as vulnerable to traffic analysis as anybody else. If they seize the data, err, I mean acquire and archive the data, then their searches are all local and away from prying eyes.

money siphoning

[gl4ss]

well.. if nothing else it's highly relevant that the programs work pretty much as a funds siphoning device(in addition to being secret, useless and rights infringing).

you would think that if they had any brains they would legislate such programs to be done with governmental employees only, no? wouldn't it make sense that only military/police/nsa personnel would be allowed to work on the project? 200k/year for technicians! imagine how much the company was billing the government for that 200k - put it at mildly at 400k. for a technician in a role they shouldn't be buying from a private contractor in the first place in a project that should not be touched by private contractor hands in the first place.. now it runs on basis of "hey here's xxx million - do what you please with it! hire friends! give stupid support contracts!".

you know what's worse than a spy program? a spy program ran by dicks for money. it's as stupid as hiring your own veterans as private contractors for military operations.

i'll just leave this here

[Anonymous Coward]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

Re:i'll just leave this here

[Dereck1701]

I think a lot of people have given up on the White House petitions site, the responses thus far on positions the administration does not approve of have been less than stellar. They are often a boilerplate response roughly approximating "we understand your concerns and will take them under advisement" which is bureaucrat for "get lost".

Re:i'll just leave this here

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Or people don't want to get put on an enemies list so that they can be harassed by the various agencies of the government... welcome to the chilling effects of the police state.

Of course, it's all fun and games when it's "those people" we disagree with that get harassed and silenced by our increasingly authoritarian government. Those people bring it on themselves, it's not the fault of the establishment we intentionally built. Oh and "those people" don't have to be the tea party if that's what you were thinking, how about all the minorities convicted of things like drug crimes or pulled over for driving while black?

If they arn't doing anything wrong?

[Dereck1701]

What are all of the three letter agencies so afraid of? I mean, If they aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't be concerned with some reasonable transparency. As long as they don't have anything to hide, right?

Its always amazing how some federal agencies seem to think it is so important to have unfettered access to others information so they can "keep a vigilant eye out" yet they so detest anyone making sure that their own activities remain above board. Especially in light of the obvious revolving door between the private sector companies which stand to make billions, and the three letter agencies dolling out those fees. As noted in the Guardian article James Clapper the current director of National Intelligence, one of the loudest voices of "disapproval" against Snowden's actions, was Vice-President of Booz Allen Hamilton not too long ago. That coupled with his lies to congress in regards to these programs............ If we're looking for traitors I'm far more concerned with the ones who are fleecing the American taxpayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars and lying to government inquests than one individual who released classified documents in an attempt to inform the public about possibly illegal acts.

The ultimate crime:

[Black Parrot]

making public officials look bad.

Statistics - reporting half year

[skegg]

Is it appropriate to report half a year's worth of data?

Facebook said Friday it had received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for user data... during the second half of last year

Though not unheard of, six months is an uncommon period to report; isn't the general expectation that they would report a full year's worth? Of course that would result in the requests being approximately doubled. My concern would be people will remember the amount as "9,000 and 10,000 requests per year".

This reminds me of politicians who also skew the time period to make dollar amounts appear larger or smaller.
To make dollar amounts appear larger, they increase the time period ("we're investing $4 billion over ten years").
An innovative approach recently used by Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to convince Australians that politicians were only awarding themselves a tiny increase in public money was to use the following: the increase is only a dollar per vote per year.

I suspect the choice of "six months" was a deliberate attempt to skew the perception of the requests.

Re:Ever heard of Vupen?

[TeknoHog]

In a HS commentary to that story they ask if cyber weapons trade should be regulated as well as IRL weapons. That would be something from redundant to hilarious, considering things like (a) strong crypto is already regulated like weapons when exported from the US, (b) the root of the problem is consumer software like Windows, so perhaps it should be classified likewise, and (c) how do you regulate people exchanging data, on the Internet or otherwise.

Booz Allen and Carlyle Group ..

[dgharmon]

For years, the Carlyle Group has tried to shed its former reputation as a second home for government officials and a specialist in buying defense companies. But the recent fracas over the National Security Agencyâs surveillance programs highlights the private equity giant's remaining ties to government work: its majority stake in Booz Allen Hamilton, the employer of the whistle-blower, Edward J. Snowden.

Scam Spin Control

[hackus]

"Facebook and Microsoft Disclose Government Requests For User Data"

Oh yeah, I believe everything that Microsoft and Facebook says about it being the nice guy here and "disclosure" of information.

I have seen scams run on T.V. at 2AM in the morning more convincing than that statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWyHiV3l3MA

-Hack