Slashdot Mirror


Use Tor, Get Targeted By the NSA

An anonymous reader sends this news from Ars Technica: "Using online anonymity services such as Tor or sending encrypted e-mail and instant messages are grounds for U.S.-based communications to be retained by the National Security Agency, even when they're collected inadvertently, according to a secret government document published Thursday. ...The memos outline procedures NSA analysts must follow to ensure they stay within the mandate of minimizing data collected on U.S. citizens and residents. While the documents make clear that data collection and interception must cease immediately once it's determined a target is within the U.S., they still provide analysts with a fair amount of leeway. And that leeway seems to work to the disadvantage of people who take steps to protect their Internet communications from prying eyes. For instance, a person whose physical location is unknown—which more often than not is the case when someone uses anonymity software from the Tor Project—"will not be treated as a United States person, unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person's communications give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person," the secret document stated.'"

451 comments

  1. Good for the economy. by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So we just need to write a Spam Generator that sends out billions of encrypted stuff to US-citizens to create government jobs?

    Nice!

    1. Re:Good for the economy. by roc97007 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm thinking of torrenting NPR.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TOR != torrent

    3. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we just need to write a Spam Generator that sends out billions of encrypted stuff to US-citizens to create government jobs?

      Nice!

      Make sure everything is randomly seeded with the word bomb. Talk about the bomb concert you went too all the time too. Maybe even talk about the bomb taco truck you stood an hour in line for one time...

    4. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was this a reason to _not_ do it? LMAO...

    5. Re:Good for the economy. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why does it matter if someone is a "us person"? Fuck off spying on me America.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some Guy in Florida is already working on this. As a side business he sells "Enhancment Tools" ;)

    7. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TOR != torrent

      Perhaps GP meant he would torrent NPR over tor?

    8. Re:Good for the economy. by drfred79 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm intending to write BOMB a script that will add random Red Flag words to my emails OBAMA at random intervals in bold so NUKE everyone can continue to read my emails normally TERRORIST but the government will start getting inundated with my AL QAEDA schemes.

    9. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So we just need to write a Spam Generator that sends out billions of encrypted stuff to US-citizens to create government jobs?

      Nice!

      As noble as that might seem, you will be undermining national security and wasting your own tax money.

      As if I could EVER fuck that up more than the current regime. Try again, 'cause that bullshit sure as hell ain't a deterrent for our government.

    10. Re:Good for the economy. by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Undermining national security. LOL. What does it feel like to see a threat in every shadow? Everyone is out to get you huh? Careful, the Democratic Republic of the Congo might just get the upper hand and de-stabilize the US before invading it!

      Seriously, by fundamentally changing what the US stands for over the last 20-30 years, you have undermined your own national security. There isn't anything left worth fighting for.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the bomb chick with the huge ASSSSSSSSassin, who I suspect is a terrorrorrorrorrist.

    12. Re:Good for the economy. by ArcadeX · · Score: 5, Funny

      you forgot the truly evil words like REDUCE TAXES, CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT, BALANCED BUDGET, NEW IDEAS, and everything else that scares the gooberment

      --
      An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
    13. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torrenting through TOR is too slow.

    14. Re:Good for the economy. by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uhm, No
      Actually TOR is many things including downloading (AFAIK you can't do torrents though but maybe you can) but it's also for folks who fear reprisals from their governments or for people who don't want their activity tracked for whatever reason. The people who set up TOR do it to promote the freedom and anonymity in the use of the Internet. Yes it's that tool for all those dirty old men out there looking for hookups on Craigslist while at work.

      There was an incident last year where an unsuspecting TOR exit node host was charged for the activities of their anonymous users in his local country. So the folks who support TOR (financially, hardware or act as hosts) don't take it lightly so people who use it shouldn't take it lightly either.

      TOR is a great tool but you can also set yourself up with a SOCKs proxy very easily say on Amazon AWS (or any other cloud service) meaning, your encrypted traffic would go to their data center and exit out whatever local network pipe they use. It's not as sophisticated as TOR, where multiple hops are used but at least with Amazon's recent statement, they may resist secret demands for your info. You could also set up cascading tunnels of tunnels but meh, I'm already probably in some file somewhere with the FBI or the NSA just for saying you can do this. I guess I shouldn't mention I have a copy of the "The Anarchist Cookbook" should I? Crap I better burn it now. Oh crap, you can get it on Amazon anyway, so I guess they're now suspects.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    15. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their net is cast too wide more I do will help narrow it... Bad management will confuse the issue more... It's not like the "bad guys" are gonna go easy on them!

    16. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used both "REDUCE TAXES" and "BALANCED BUDGET". Were you dropped on your head as a child?

    17. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't that mostly what Tor already is?

      A bunch of people downloading music and movies to hid from the RIAA and MPAA despite being told Tor's a bad tool for the job?

      No, Tor doesn't run fast enough most of the time to make torrents worthwhile. Most people use Tor as an anoymous proxy, and that's all.
      The Onion-based sites themselves mostly contain illegal activity such as child porn, drugs (Silk Road), hacking hangouts, credit card trading forums, and other stuff that is likely to get you in trouble with various governments around the world.

    18. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as he doesn't doubt the quality of tab water...

    19. Re:Good for the economy. by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If we just stopped most of the welfare programs and started using the military only for defense rather than "nation building" and killing Pakistani civilians we could very easily reduce taxes and balance the budget.

      Indeed if we rolled back government spending to early 1990s levels we could eliminate the income tax entirely.

      You can't have the welfare, warfare and nanny state though.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    20. Re:Good for the economy. by beelsebob · · Score: 0

      I don't really get it... The entire reason you might use Tor is because you want to hide what you're doing from the authorities... Why on earth would the authorities not consider it interesting what you're hiding if you're doing so?

      It's like suggesting that a cop shouldn't go and investigate a guy handing a package to another guy in a back alley because back allies are common places for drug deals to take place.

      They have suspicion that something dodgy is going on, and they're investigating it, that's what we pay them to do.

    21. Re:Good for the economy. by similar_name · · Score: 0

      If we just stopped most of the welfare programs

      Good luck stopping social security and medicare.

    22. Re:Good for the economy. by PrivacyXpert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is human right and human freedom that USA Government have been actively accusing other countries of lacking whereby they are spying on their own people in their own backyard? Its a disgraceful joke

      --
      Check out my profile to learn more about me
    23. Re:Good for the economy. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Just keep in mind that a government at 1990's prices would provide half the defense and services that it did in the 1990's due to 20 years worth of inflation.

      Also- if you don't pay the promised social security bills you are going to have a lot of starving and dying old people. Some might get violent.

      I could see means testing social security more (we already means test it some). Then you only take it away from people who have so much savings or such good pensions that they don't need it (it's just a cherry on top of their retirement income).

      And I could definitely see cutting defense ALL the way back to inflation adjusted 2001 levels (it would still be more than the next 15 nations combined).

      However, without estate taxes and rolling back the bush tax cuts we are going to become an oligarchy even faster than we are now. And that path always ends badly for the countries that went down it. (if you are worried, the oligarchs usually get away just fine with all the money-- they don't care about the country anyway).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re:Good for the economy. by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      Not my tax money! and no, I don't trust your government like they ask for.

      Please tell them to stop spying on me.

    25. Re:Good for the economy. by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't really get it... The entire reason you might use Tor is because you want to hide what you're doing from the authorities... Why on earth would the authorities not consider it interesting what you're hiding if you're doing so?

      It's like suggesting that a cop shouldn't go and investigate a guy handing a package to another guy in a back alley because back allies are common places for drug deals to take place.

      They have suspicion that something dodgy is going on, and they're investigating it, that's what we pay them to do.

      I use TOR for the same reason I close my curtains at night and don't keep my personal journal out on the front porch with a sign that says "read me!". I just don't like other people snooping on my private life. Though if I had to choose between some random guy on the street watching my browsing activity or the NSA, I'd choose the guy on the street because he's probably only doing it because he's nosy, but the NSA is doing it to see if they can link me to terrorism.

    26. Re:Good for the economy. by matrim99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because of the Fourth Amendment.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    27. Re:Good for the economy. by PrivacyXpert · · Score: 2

      You cannot use Tor to download as the speed is too slow. In fact, you will most likely use it for communication purposes only.

      --
      Check out my profile to learn more about me
    28. Re:Good for the economy. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      As noble as that might seem, you will be undermining national security and wasting your own tax money.

      And we employ professionals to do both of those. We call them "Legislators".

    29. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only true PATRIOTS on either side of the aisle talk about REDUCING TAXES or BALANCED BUDGETS. Only we can help OBAMA stop terrorists from pulling off a BOMB NSA HACK. Maybe we can get the TEA PARTY to help.

    30. Re:Good for the economy. by Nyder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Undermining national security. LOL. What does it feel like to see a threat in every shadow? Everyone is out to get you huh? Careful, the Democratic Republic of the Congo might just get the upper hand and de-stabilize the US before invading it!

      Seriously, by fundamentally changing what the US stands for over the last 20-30 years, you have undermined your own national security. There isn't anything left worth fighting for.

      The truth is, the US. Government is scared because they have been doing things that the people wouldn't approve for decades. They are scared because they know the house they built is coming down around them, and people are getting tired of it. They are scared because they know when we get sick of it and find out all shit they been doing, we are going to come down hard. They are trying to keep us from doing anything.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    31. Re:Good for the economy. by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Define "Communication Purposes Only."

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    32. Re:Good for the economy. by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Informative

      What is human right and human freedom that USA Government have been actively accusing other countries of lacking whereby they are spying on their own people in their own backyard? Its a disgraceful joke

      You can't handle the truth.

      They've been doing it for decades through their intelligence partnerships with various NATO allies. The predecessors of these systems were already in place, the post-9/11 paranoia allowed them to ramp it up to unprecedented levels all over NATO.

      For example, Canada has the same rule, a Canadian agency cannot spy on Canadians without specific legal orders. However the U.S. can spy on Canadians, and Canada can spy on Americans. Quid quo pro.

      As soon as you have a covert agency in any country is will find some way to dirty itself because most of the time they cannot discuss their operations with politicians.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    33. Re:Good for the economy. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The entire point and purpose of the 4th amendment is to prevent this sort of thing. The government is not supposed to search someone unless they have evidence that that specific person committed some specific crime.

      That principle is important, because it prevents (sadly real world) problems like "a liquor store got robbed - detain every black person in a 3 block radius, one of them probably did it" or "it's Wednesday, round up every Jew in a 3 block radius and search them all - we'll find something to arrest some of them for" or "these Tea Party guys sure do oppose the party in power, lets search them all and see if we can find any grounds to arrest some of them".

      Any power you grant the government or the police will be abused to the maximum extent consistent with human nature. You need to constrain the power to search more narrowly than "that guy looks suspicious to me".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    34. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, wow. Where to begin?

      "eth0" doesn't live at /dev/eth0. It's not a character device. You can't just write a stream of bytes to it and expect them to appear on the wire. If you somehow could, the result stream of bytes would look nothing like ethernet packets, and all you would succeed in doing is wreaking havoc on your LAN. Your router wouldn't be able to understand anything it saw, and would transmit none of it to your ISP.

      Also, mathematically, true random data can't be compressed. In practice, that holds true for the output of your pseudo-random number generator too. I.e. why the heck are you using "compress"?

      Furthermore, on most modern unixes "/dev/random" consumes entropy from your kernel's entropy pool. If the level of entropy available gets low, reading from it will block until more random data is available. Unlike /dev/urandom, /dev/random will not generate more pseudo-random output on demand. That means that running the above command will make any process on your system that uses /dev/random (i.e. all active SSH sessions, HTTPS connections, etc.) hang. The entropy pool is replenished from various physical sources - such as the number of microseconds between incoming packets, keystrokes, etc. - but not quickly enough if you run the command you suggested. (At least, not unless your motherboard has a hardware entropy source. They exist, but they're rare.)

      You really didn't think that comment through much, did you?

    35. Re:Good for the economy. by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      you're half right ... it's disgraceful ...

    36. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government peons who work on it would get paid anyway. At least they do something :D

    37. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you are saying, Slashdot, Streisand, get all Tor up about it?

    38. Re:Good for the economy. by ragefan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Undermining national security. LOL. What does it feel like to see a threat in every shadow? Everyone is out to get you huh? Careful, the Democratic Republic of the Congo might just get the upper hand and de-stabilize the US before invading it!

      Seriously, by fundamentally changing what the US stands for over the last 20-30 years, you have undermined your own national security. There isn't anything left worth fighting for.

      The truth is, the US. Government is scared because they have been doing things that the people wouldn't approve for decades. They are scared because they know the house they built is coming down around them, and people are getting tired of it. They are scared because they know when we get sick of it and find out all shit they been doing, we are going to come down hard. They are trying to keep us from doing anything.

      Come down hard?! Hmm, no. The American people will continue to ignore what the U.S. government does as long as they keep Hollywood pumping out new episodes of "Ouch! My Balls!" If the American people really gave a fuck, then a Congress with 16% approval rating would be wiped clean rather than the majority of incumbents be re-elected.

    39. Re:Good for the economy. by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More to the point, by focusing the whole intelligence network so much on cultists with boxcutters, we're diverting attention from real national security matters (though still nothing to freak out about.) Such as cybersecurity, getting off oil dependence, and biosecurity. Preventing terrorists from killing more civilians than golf cart accidents is not a priority, preventing a nasty bout of influenza from spreading through the airports, or oil shocks, or infrastructure being shut down due to cyber attacks, that's much more worthy of tax dollars.

      Again, nothing to panic about, so don't vote for someone who says we should require blood samples to fly...

    40. Re:Good for the economy. by Dins · · Score: 1

      I'm intending to write BOMB a script that will add random Red Flag words to my emails OBAMA at random intervals in bold so NUKE everyone can continue to read my emails normally TERRORIST but the government will start getting inundated with my AL QAEDA schemes.

      Except I doubt anyone we would consider a terrorist calls themselves a terrorist.

      I'd go with stuff like: OBAMA, NUKE, WHITE HOUSE, JIHAD, ALLAH, MUHAMMAD, MECCA, INFIDEL, THE PROPHET, TALIBAN.

      There. Am I on any lists yet? =P

    41. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a lot of tor bridges which they can't distinguish from the usual (increasingly used) https.

    42. Re:Good for the economy. by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      ...you will be undermining national security...

      No more than Mr Soetero-Obama is undermining it sending arms to the Syrian AlQueda fighters...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    43. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it's perfectly possible to reduce taxes and balance the budget. You can reduce taxes to just the level needed to fund all the governement employees (other wise the pigs err senators and congress criters with their snouts in the trough wont go for it) and provide no services.

      The budget balances.

    44. Re:Good for the economy. by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Come down hard?! Hmm, no. The American people will continue to ignore what the U.S. government does as long as they keep Hollywood pumping out new episodes of "Ouch! My Balls!" If the American people really gave a fuck, then a Congress with 16% approval rating would be wiped clean rather than the majority of incumbents be re-elected.

      +1 internets for you sir.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    45. Re:Good for the economy. by Bucc5062 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And there it is...We The People. We bitch, moan, rant and rave, yet pull the same damn lever each and every time. Is it the "devil you know" syndrome, the sheeple principle, general apathy, or some combination of all of the above.

      Consider that the 16% rating comes from people thinking the "Congress" sucks, but "by God my guy is doing good...isn't he?" and thus vote him/her back into office. In my case I am in the manority and though I continue to cast my vote for "anything but the above" I'll lose. The system was gamed long time ago and if you'll pardon the pun...The House always wins.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    46. Re:Good for the economy. by fche · · Score: 1

      Because the NSA is apprx. not restricted at all when spying on us foreigners.

    47. Re:Good for the economy. by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TOR != torrent

      Perhaps GP meant he would torrent NPR over tor?

      That's it. The thought was, it'd be a way to create some really big torrents over The Onion Router that would be active for long periods of time.

      The flaw in my cunning plan is that there would need to be recipients for this to work. I may have to label it as porn.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    48. Re:Good for the economy. by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      LOL ^^^ this guy thinks Reducing Taxes and a Balanced Budget are conversely related. It just requires the government to stop performing the functions it was never intended to do regardless. But from a strictly apples to apples comparison just check out the Laffer Curve, or hell the simple axiom of supply and demand. Lower price = more sales. Or another one: reduced taxes reduces the dead weight loss of tax inefficiencies thus creating more tax revenues through economic growth. Before Obama's tax increase we were spending $1.25 in reporting compliance for every $1 in taxes received by the government. That is DWL and its stifling our economy. But no, please do continue and tell me more about how Reduced Taxes and Balanced Budgets are conversely related.

    49. Re:Good for the economy. by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      You used both "REDUCE TAXES" and "BALANCED BUDGET". Were you dropped on your head as a child?

      Actually, it's quite possible. All you have to do is STOP SPENDING.

      It's not like examples of Government waste are hard to find, no matter what your ideological viewpoint.

      The $70 million in IRS bonuses and ***7 BILLION*** dollars of military equipment being scrapped in Afghanistan come to mind as a few of the more obvious examples. . .

    50. Re:Good for the economy. by pegr · · Score: 1

      "Just keep in mind that a government at 1990's prices would provide half the defense and services that it did in the 1990's due to 20 years worth of inflation."

      And if you reduced US defense budgets to 25% of current, you still be spending more than the next largest spender (China). But don't take my word for it.

    51. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're laboring under a delusion that the people doing the spying are Americans.

      US citizens haven't had much say in the actions of their government for a very long time now. And, I suspect for that matter, the same could be said of any national government / para-governmental organization or corporation.

      Stop blaming me for the actions of evil swine I have no control over.

    52. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The algorithms are a bit more complex than your feeble brain can comprehend. Keyword spamming does nothing, because keywords aren't analyzed. This is graph theory, not amateur search engine design.

    53. Re:Good for the economy. by phrackthat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, anytime someone claims we live in a representative democracy, I point to Congress's approval rating. BTW, the latest Gallup poll shows that only 10% of Americans have confidence in our Congress and 80% feel they are doing serious harm to our country.

    54. Re:Good for the economy. by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      bittorrent over tor is frowned upon (although it seems to account for 40% of traffic). There are a limited number of exit nodes and many reject bt ports. Additionally, your encrypted traffic may bounce around the world a few times so you're bogging down the tor network.

      I would encourage everybody to run a tor node, though. Either permanently on a server or temporarily on your computer with vidalia.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    55. Re:Good for the economy. by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the public sector is so large there is so much of the private sector is directly and indirectly dependent upon it that abruptly stopping spending would throw the US economy into a tailspin. It has to be weaned to allow the economy to shift to other areas of commerce. That takes time. Tank manufacturers, don't wake up one morning and decide they will make bicycles that day. Massive unemployment would ensue if the government suddenly shut off the tap.

      We may still end up in a double dip recession due to the sequester reductions and that is trivial to a real balanced budget.

    56. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It varies a lot, depending mostly on the bandwidth limits of the exit node since intermediate nodes far outnumber them, but I have had downloads from Tor that were as good as my ISP's connection would allow. Download rates in the 40-120 KB/s range are not that uncommon. Then again, neither are downloads less than 10 KB/s. Don't go crazy downloading ISOs or movies or whatever, and you'll be fine.

      That said, in response to the GP post, do not use Tor for Torrents! Any sort of P2P system that relies on many, brief connections for throughput will swamp the network in overhead from establishing connections. Also, Tor isn't really good for incoming connections from a public network, only outgoing ones. Torrents degrade Tor performance immensely. Use something like I2P instead.

    57. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would this get modded 'funny'?

      This is actually the most efficient short-term solution to the problem of untrustworthy governments.

      http://falkvinge.net/2013/06/19/how-todays-nsa-is-much-much-worse-than-stasi-or-orwells-1984/#comment-114415

    58. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay off the US internet then, faggot.

    59. Re:Good for the economy. by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      What sequester?

    60. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there it is...We The People. We bitch, moan, rant and rave, yet pull the same damn lever each and every time.

      The real problem is every choice is really the same choice. The only way to change the system is to stop using it. But by not using the system you lose the ability to change it.

      This is how they win.

    61. Re:Good for the economy. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or is it that there are only two levers to pull? The two parties work together to make sure no independent or third-party candidate ever gains enough power to threaten their duopoly.

    62. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a gardener, if they take away my Brawndo, there'll be hell to pay!

    63. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Fourth was dead on arrival precisely because of the fact that there was no need for an explicit amendment. Where in the constitution was the Government allowed something that was to be contained by the Fourth? I see none.

      The point is that making a special law is the starting point of failure of general law and number of special laws will only increase with time. The whole of NSA is illegal per constitution, I would argue, but who will listen, except of course NSA?

    64. Re:Good for the economy. by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Yes...and? Sometimes people need to deal with hard times after decades of bad decisions and waste. We allowed this situation to happen, we supported it, we deserve the consequence of fixing it.

      "Its going to suck for me" is not an excuse to continue doing the wrong thing and digging deeper and deeper. Simply put, tank manufactuers may not decide tomorow to make bicycles, but, if you don't cut them off, they will NEVER stop making tanks.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    65. Re:Good for the economy. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You can use Tor for torrents, but speed is absolutely terrible. There are few exit nodes, all of them overloaded, and most of them block torrent ports.

    66. Re:Good for the economy. by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Right, what's being argued over is the definition of "evidence". Typically the police take it as "it looked like he was handing something suspicious over, I think that was a drug deal", and I think that's a fair enough interpretation. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with the interpretation "it looked like they were trying to transfer data in a way specifically designed to evade other people knowing who transferred the data, that's pretty fucking dodgy, I think something illegal just happened, and we should investigate it".

    67. Re: Good for the economy. by kenh · · Score: 1

      Just pipe twitter through a Tor server...

      --
      Ken
    68. Re:Good for the economy. by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Funny

      Have you seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4z09el30f8

      Personally, I think that is the bomb. It would be great to see that blow up, like semtex in Times Square delivering the wrath of God down upon the heads of the apostate and infidels.

      Praise be to God and His prophet who has now shown us the way in these dark times; and let us hope that this knowledge engulfs washington, like a great fireball!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    69. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a novel idea that our votes still count and the elections aren't rigged. The machines have been known to be able to be easily hacked for something like 15+ years. Same machines still in use in many places still today. The new ones run some of the same software. Did anyone get the message?

      Voting is just to make feel like you get to pick.

    70. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gawd I wish it were that easy.

    71. Re:Good for the economy. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The US military is also a significant sponsor of NASCAR and pro-wrestling. One congressman propose an amendment to the recent defense bill to put an end to that, but it was rejected by vote after supporters of the sponsorship argued it was a cost-effective recruiting tool.

    72. Re:Good for the economy. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      So you'd rather pull the band-aid off a little at a time than just rip it off and get it over with?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    73. Re:Good for the economy. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Also, the NSA is supposed to be protecting national security, not acting as law enforcement. If you're using Tor to hide your financial scams, trade drugs or amass a collection of illegal pornography then it is none of their business to investigate.

    74. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. You are now being tracked and will be randomly jailed, beat up and messed with until you confess.

      NSA bot.

    75. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. You are now being tracked and will be randomly jailed, beat up and messed with until you confess.

      Drunken NSA analyst...

    76. Re:Good for the economy. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      TOR is a great tool but you can also set yourself up with a SOCKs proxy very easily say on Amazon AWS (or any other cloud service) meaning, your encrypted traffic would go to their data center and exit out whatever local network pipe they use. It's not as sophisticated as TOR, where multiple hops are used but at least with Amazon's recent statement, they may resist secret demands for your info.

      Come on now. A SOCKs proxy to a single host is a great solution for evading snooping by your own ISP (or IT department). But it's not even close to anonymous.

      If you're trying to hide from the NSA, you cannot rely on anyone to protect your identity. The only way to be secure is for it to be impossible for anyone to divulge your identity. Tor comes closer to that than any other solution.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    77. Re:Good for the economy. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Undermining national security. LOL. What does it feel like to see a threat in every shadow? Everyone is out to get you huh? Careful, the Democratic Republic of the Congo might just get the upper hand and de-stabilize the US before invading it!

      Seriously, by fundamentally changing what the US stands for over the last 20-30 years, you have undermined your own national security. There isn't anything left worth fighting for.

      The truth is, the US. Government is scared because they have been doing things that the people wouldn't approve for decades. They are scared because they know the house they built is coming down around them, and people are getting tired of it. They are scared because they know when we get sick of it and find out all shit they been doing, we are going to come down hard. They are trying to keep us from doing anything.

      Come down hard?! Hmm, no. The American people will continue to ignore what the U.S. government does as long as they keep Hollywood pumping out new episodes of "Ouch! My Balls!" If the American people really gave a fuck, then a Congress with 16% approval rating would be wiped clean rather than the majority of incumbents be re-elected.

      So that's your excuse huh? No one else will bother so I won't? No one else cares so why should I? If I recall, the boston tea party wasn't done by the majority of people, it was done by a small handfull, and that started this country rolling. I bet we had people just like you back then, telling everyone it's too hard, no one cares and we shouldn't do anything.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    78. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it matter if someone is a "us person"?

      There's a difference between spying on your own population vs spying on other populations. Especially when your own laws say you can't spy on your own people. That's why it matters.

      Fuck off spying on me America

      1. They don't care what you think.
      2. They are not the only ones doing it, they aren't the first or the last.
      3. I'm sure the US will do what you tell them to just as much as you'll do what they tell you to do. Which is to say, they won't.

    79. Re:Good for the economy. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      And there it is...We The People. We bitch, moan, rant and rave, yet pull the same damn lever each and every time. Is it the "devil you know" syndrome, the sheeple principle, general apathy, or some combination of all of the above.

      Consider that the 16% rating comes from people thinking the "Congress" sucks, but "by God my guy is doing good...isn't he?" and thus vote him/her back into office. In my case I am in the manority and though I continue to cast my vote for "anything but the above" I'll lose. The system was gamed long time ago and if you'll pardon the pun...The House always wins.

      I'm sure that was said about the English Government that used to rule over America. I'm sure the communist party was saying that up until the USSR collapsed. I'm sure the communist party of East Berlin was saying that just until the wall fell down.

      Rome used to have a big ass empire, and you had to play by their rules, and what happened to that empire?

      It's time for a change and the question is, do you have the balls to step up? Or are you going to make more excuses?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    80. Re:Good for the economy. by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes...and? Sometimes people need to deal with hard times after decades of bad decisions and waste. We allowed this situation to happen, we supported it, we deserve the consequence of fixing it.

      And as it took "decades" of bad decisions, you are not going to change it in a year. The economy does not shift instantly when there are disruptions. That is not to say that nothing should be done, but unless you enjoy civil unrest, crime, massive unemployment, it must be done with care. See Greece for how not to do that sort of thing. Pensioners were committing suicide to avoid starving to death.

      Our economy is a LOT bigger and harder to radically redesign.

      "Its going to suck for me" is not an excuse to continue doing the wrong thing and digging deeper and deeper. Simply put, tank manufactuers may not decide tomorow to make bicycles, but, if you don't cut them off, they will NEVER stop making tanks.

      Cutting off a few tank orders is not the same thing as cutting 40% of Federal spending to arrive at a balanced budget. If you suddenly removed $1 Trillion from the US economy, it doesn't matter how much capital would be freed up for "investment," as you would have widespread panic and unemployment that would make the "great Recession" seem like a day at the park. The fact is, it would "suck" for everyone worldwide. We are 5 years out from the housing bubble and we are just now digging out from unemployment trouble.

      The problem is demographics, growth stagnation, and poor planning. Simplistic edicts like yours will not suddenly fix everything.

    81. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contract hits, pedo, drugs, illict images, stuff snowden clamed he had. Thats the purpose of the darknet. You didn't know that?

    82. Re:Good for the economy. by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      What is human right and human freedom that USA Government have been actively accusing other countries of lacking whereby they are spying on their own people in their own backyard?

      If you read the into, if they can identify you as a United State citizen for this purpose, they won't look.

      Does surveillance of internet traffic by the US mean that the people of China, North Korea, or Cuba can vote for more than one political party? Has it diminished the number of American political parties? In both cases, no.

      Does surveillance of internet traffic by the US mean that Pakistan has started protecting religious minorities in a meaningful way, instead of allowing them to be killed? Has it closed any churches in America? In both cases, no.

      Does surveillance of internet traffic by the US mean Syria has stopped political oppression? No. Did it create it? No.

      Surveillance of internet traffic by US intelligence agencies has changed little, or nothing.

      As to the rights, this isn't all inclusive, but a good start.

      The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
      The right to vote in free and fair elections.
      Free exercise of religion; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition the government for redress of grievances
      Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. (And note that just because you consider it unreasonable doesn't mean that the law does.)
      Due process, no double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination.
      Trial by jury and rights of the accused; speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
      Civil trial by jury.
      Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

      Americans also have other protections that the government may not necessarily be a strong advocate for internationally.
      The right to keep and bear arms.
      Protection from quartering of troops in one's home

      One party states by definition aren't offering free and fair elections.
      Communist states have generally been oppressive in many regards, including freedom of religion, speech, and press.
      Many states oppress ethnic or religious minorities.

      The United States can continue to address these and other human rights issues.

      --
      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
    83. Re:Good for the economy. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Indeed if we rolled back government spending to early 1990s levels we could eliminate the income tax entirely.

      Because everyone knows that when we were actually spending at 1990s levels (in 1990) there was no income tax.

    84. Re:Good for the economy. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      I could see means testing social security more (we already means test it some). Then you only take it away from people who have so much savings or such good pensions that they don't need it (it's just a cherry on top of their retirement income).

      So then you're a proponent of government taking money away from people under false pretenses. As in, "we'll take X percent of your income away from you today to provide for you when you get old. Oops, now you're old, we aren't going to provide for you after all. But we WILL give out free lunches to every child no matter how much money their parents make during the summer when school isn't in session. Aren't you glad you paid all those taxes and trusted us?"

      If a private company did that, they'd be guilty of fraud and behaving unethically. When government does it, its the younger people deciding they don't want to honor the promises made to their parents.

    85. Re:Good for the economy. by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

      A simplistic analogy only demonstrates either a profound lack of understanding of the complexities of the problem, or a serious apathy toward the parts of the population that would be thrown into a survival situation.

    86. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That principle is important, because it prevents (sadly real world) problems like "a liquor store got robbed - detain every black person in a 3 block radius, one of them probably did it". . .

      Nothing is or has ever prevented this scenario. It happens all the time to unpopular or non-powerful minorities.

      I guess I must have missed the outrage from relatively privileged technophiles about the rights of poor blacks being abused by Big Brother over the last few centuries and every day of the life of any person who may read this.

      But yeah, keep squealing about how truth, justice and the American Way will end if the secrecy your seedy online behavior is not held sacrosanct.

    87. Re:Good for the economy. by the_povinator · · Score: 1
      Way to put him in his place! I don't think this "Anonymous Coward" will be showing his face around here for a while...

      Um, wow. Where to begin?

      "eth0" doesn't live at /dev/eth0. It's not a character device....

      --
      The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    88. Re:Good for the economy. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The entire point and purpose of the 4th amendment is to prevent this sort of thing. The government is not supposed to search someone unless they have evidence that that specific person committed some specific crime.

      That principle is important, because it prevents (sadly real world) problems like "a liquor store got robbed - detain every black person in a 3 block radius, one of them probably did it" or "it's Wednesday, round up every Jew in a 3 block radius and search them all - we'll find something to arrest some of them for" or "these Tea Party guys sure do oppose the party in power, lets search them all and see if we can find any grounds to arrest some of them".

      Any power you grant the government or the police will be abused to the maximum extent consistent with human nature. You need to constrain the power to search more narrowly than "that guy looks suspicious to me".

      But it DOES happen.

      The fourth amendment only keeps the police from arresting everyone - they can (and do) set up a roadblock to quickly scan everyone passing through it. However, they're not allowed to do a search - just to see what everyone else can see.

      Basically, if it's out in the open for the world to see, the "world" includes cops. If the alcohol that was robbed was put into a bunch of plastic bags tied up, unless it's plainly obvious that it was stolen, they're not allowed to search the bags or even ask you for a receipt that you actually paid for it. But if you roll pass the roadblock with a car full of bottles of expensive alcohol visible through your car windows...

      Likewise, if you were doing something illegal and what you were doing was plainly visible to someone on the street, then the fourth amendment doesn't mean a cop walking past the window can't look. Of course, that observation can be taken to court to get a search warrant. However, should the curtains be drawn so someone on the street cannot observe the activities inside, then a copy cannot ask you to open said curtains, and will need other evidence to get a warrant.

      Heck, I think that's the legal test as well - is what you were doing visible to others? Just like the stolen liquor - if it was in the trunk, the cops can't ask to see the contents of your trunk (because it's not visible). However, if cases of it are sitting on the front seat ...

    89. Re:Good for the economy. by Kardos · · Score: 1
    90. Re:Good for the economy. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      What does it feel like to see a threat in every shadow?

      It's a little unnerving, but it's reassuring to know that other people see them too every now and then. ;)

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    91. Re:Good for the economy. by craigtollting · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. That's exactly what he's saying. But since you're too thick to get it, here's why your simplistic analogy doesn't work when it comes to macro-economics.

      Pulling the band-aid off slowly makes it hurt less, albeit for a longer period of time. Ripping the band-aid off, in this case, would cause massive bleeding and possibly rip the entire limb off that had the band-aid on it in the first place.

      Of course, if you're okay with 30% unemployment and increased crime rates nationwide (worldwide?), among other world-changing effects, then maybe we should go with your solution. It worked out great in the 1930's, after all.

    92. Re:Good for the economy. by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the GP is using a more modern OS ;)

      AFAIK, in Plan 9, everything is a file, as a logical continuation of the Unix philosophy. You mount the other machine as a network filesystem, and then access its resources like the CPU and network (for NAT). I have no experience on it, so maybe someone can elaborate.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    93. Re:Good for the economy. by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Good luck prying our tax dollars from the hands of the military-industrial-spy complex.

    94. Re:Good for the economy. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 0

      Okay, that was kind of flippant of me. And in theory I can see how you're right. In practice, though, I doubt once the situation is so dire that even those in Congress are willing to implement far reaching spending cuts, I don't think they'll still have the luxury of deciding how they'll go about it -- I think they'll just keep up the pretence that they can spin gold out of straw until it all crashes.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    95. Re:Good for the economy. by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Technically though under the constitution, foreigners get the same rights as citizens. If it's unconstitutional to wiretap Americans without a warrant then it is also unconstitutional to wiretap foreigners without a warrant.

      Whether or not these "laws" are constitutional, the reason they make it clear that they're spying on foreigners but not Americans is really only done for political reasons. They know that congress doesn't care about foreigners and that citizens won't mind much if they accidentally find out about rules that only apply to other poeple. Ie, if the government is spying on US citizens without a warrant then the public would demand a full accounting of what's going on and what legal justification there is and whether the letter of the law is being followed, but if they're only spying on foreigners then there's not much scrutiny paid to these illegal actions.

    96. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Diane Reemes porn? How IIIINTERESTING!"

    97. Re:Good for the economy. by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Actually.. I don't pay them to do it, I don't even live in the USA, but they still do it. Hell, they do it -more- to foreigners. If I had any choice in the matter, I'd opt out of paying for any such things here in the Netherlands too. Of course, that's not a thing that'll ever happen... governments and police forces / intelligence agencies are just too tightly intertwined.

    98. Re:Good for the economy. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      i have been thinking of setting up a tor node but my internet is to slow as is at home. i wonder could you set one up on the fee tier of amazon web services or would it to quickly burn through its bandwidth?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    99. Re:Good for the economy. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I may have to label it as porn.

      Diane-Rehm-reading-Peterotica:-Books-on-Tape.ogg

    100. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the latest document releases are to be believed, it won't matter.

      They will target you if they think YOU may have some knowledge or information about the actual target. Regardless if you have had direct contact with them or not. ( The only paragraph in the document that is TS/SI btw )

      " (TS/SI) In addition, in those cases where NSA seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target, NSA will either employ an Internet Protocol filter to ensure that the person from whom it seeks to obtain foreign intelligence information is located overseas, or it will target Internet links that terminate in a foreign country. In either event, NSA will direct surveillance at a party to the communication reasonably believed to be outside the United States."

      UNLESS

      The comms are via Tor, obfuscated, encrypted or otherwise determined to contain some secret meaning. In which case, the rules don't apply at all. :|

    101. Re:Good for the economy. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You are correct, though I think that network interfaces still operate a bit differently than other character/block devices. I believe that network organization was actually abstracted into the filesystem, much as is done with many FUSE filesystems.

    102. Re:Good for the economy. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Sure.

      The government overpromised.

      So who to break the promise to?

      5 million people who are making over $100,000 a year without social security or
      70 million people living on $12,000 to $29,000 a year?

      Do we cut all their benefits "equally" -- reducing one person from $129,000 a year to $122,000 a year and the other person from $12,000 a year to $9,000 a year?

      Each person making $129,000 year saves 10 other people from starving to death.

      It's unfortunate but the baby boomers made a bigger commitment to themselves than their kids and grandkids can afford.

      Right now- if we do nothing the above case is exactly what is slated to happen- across the board 25% cuts for all recipients of social security. It will be devastating to the poor elderly.

      The "government" WAS the boomers. They made this promise to themselves and put the bill on a group of people who were not even born yet. When you get down to it, that doesn't even seem legal to me.

      (and most boomers will collect way more- even adjusting for inflation-- than they contributed). (I agree a few lucky ones who invested wisely would have had more money but most wouldn't have-- which is why it's social security *insurance*. I bet NONE of the people Bernie Madoff ripped off expected they would be 100% dependent on social security. They thought they were smart and luckier than average and probably scoffed at the idea of social security.).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    103. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was psuedocode?

    104. Re:Good for the economy. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yea-- but unfortunately, within the last 50 years China AND Russia AND several other countries were all our enemies at the same time. So I get the need to spend at least that much. We are grossly overspending right now tho. It's way up just since 2009 even.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    105. Re:Good for the economy. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Why does it matter if someone is a "us person"? Fuck off spying on me America.

      I doubt "they" are spying on you so much as spying on the people around you that HM government are watching, concerned about, and which emerge from the population segment that will constitute a rapidly growing percentage of the population unless native Britons begin having children again.

      Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
      7 July 2005 London bombings
      At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says - A few years old, but I doubt it has changed much.
      MI5 warns al-Qaida regaining UK toehold after Arab spring
      What do British Muslims think of the UK?
      Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London
      2066: White Britons will be in the minority in UK
      The British women converting to Islam
      David Cameron studies plans for multi-faith Lords - ... where Muslim imams could sit alongside Anglican and Catholic bishops.

      I suspect that the future Troubles will leave people pining for the old Troubles unless these portents change. Of course if you like goat, and prefer your women veiled, it may not be all bad. Of course singing Jerusalem will likely be considered "offensive" at some point.

      --
      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
    106. Re:Good for the economy. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You used both "REDUCE TAXES" and "BALANCED BUDGET". Were you dropped on your head as a child?

      If you increase taxes to 100% but do not reduce spending, you will not achieve a balanced budget. If you decrease spending to 0, you can have a balanced budget with tax reduced to 0%. Tax increases are not necessarily the way to a balanced budget. Spending has to go down, whether taxes go up or down.

    107. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't hide any meanings, or encrypt your post. NSA is not interested.

    108. Re:Good for the economy. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Read below, I already responded to why I don't think it matters what would work best in a clean room implementation of economics, and it's not from being thick or simplistic (although nice ad hominem there).

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    109. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's time for a change and the question is, do you have the balls to step up? Or are you going to make more excuses?"

      Well said. I'll correct one point, it is not an excuse, it is an observation. I take action when I can through my vote, my voice, and when applicable my time. I sense the need for a "revolution" in this country but I don't feel we are ready for the extreme. What would be great is an extension of the peaceful revolution of MLK or Ghandi; what I sense is no will in the American People to stand on their beliefs.

    110. Re:Good for the economy. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Simplistic edicts like yours will not suddenly fix everything.

      And this is what you are missing....I never said they would suddenly fix everything. Simply that they would be a step in the right direction. I don't care if it fixes everything suddenly or it takes a long hard climb back up from the bottom.

      It doesn't matter to me. We all deserve the pain it would cause for supporting the system we have now for so many decades. This terrible plight would simply be, what we brought on ourselves. Now the sooner we start, the sooner we can start climbing back out.

      Quite simply, if our economy requires us to maintain a war machinje, then we should let it tank, because we don't deserve a good, first world, economy.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    111. Re:Good for the economy. by Dins · · Score: 1

      Ok, now I'm afraid to click the link, youtube though it may be...

    112. Re:Good for the economy. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The "government" WAS the boomers. They made this promise to themselves

      You're wrong. The social security act was passed in 1935 and taxes started being collected in 1937. The "boomers" weren't born until WWII -- after 1945 or so. This promise was made to us by FDR and his New Deal democrats, not the 'boomers'.

      Each person making $129,000 year saves 10 other people from starving to death.

      Huh? This is nonsense. What does it mean? What makes you think I'm going to be making $129,000 a year after I retire? That's just ridiculous.

      (and most boomers will collect way more- even adjusting for inflation-- than they contributed).

      Not if you cut them off because they managed to save a little too much of what they earned and in your mind don't deserve to get anything back from a system they paid into all their lives.

      Here's a deal for you: give me back all the money I put into the system. Pay me back. I'll worry about myself. But don't you dare promise me that you'll take care of me in the future if I give you money I worked to earn today and then renege on the deal. That's patently dishonest.

      I bet NONE of the people Bernie Madoff ripped off expected they would be 100% dependent on social security.

      You're pulling in so much irrelevant stuff that talking to you makes no sense. I bet James Gandolfino expected to pay into the system for a few more years, too. So what?

    113. Re:Good for the economy. by Dins · · Score: 1

      Alright. Clicked the link. Don't regret it. I love Trevor Moore!

    114. Re:Good for the economy. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We all deserve the pain it would cause for supporting the system we have now for so many decades.

      Yeah, the pain.

      The young folks don't have to pay into a system that they aren't going to get anything back from. What a pain for them. Less taxes for the rest of their lives.

      The old folks don't get anything back from a system they've already paid into for all their lives and depend on to stay alive now.

      I think the "pain" you expect us all to share is a bit different for some of us compared to others.

    115. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he fell for the original bullsh*t progaganda of St. Reagan the Senile, who ran for president in 1980 on a platform of lowered taxes, increased defense spending, and balanced budgets.

      Not a single budget St. Reagan delivered to the Congress was in balance when he submitted it, the magic tax cuts did NOT pay for themselves (and left us with the largest debt and budget deficit to that date in US history), and the military (at first) didn't want all that extra money because they knew we weren't "weak" and that the justification for the massive buildup was based on the lies of Team B.

      So, it isn't that he was dropped on his head, it's that he's a perfect example of "if you tell a lie long enough, people will come to believe it".

    116. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >and ***7 BILLION*** dollars of military equipment being scrapped in Afghanistan

      Yes, well, we TOLD you fools not to go fight those wars, but would you listen?

    117. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think that people who would otherwise think America is great, will have a change of heart about America due to the spying? It's happened at least once.

    118. Re:Good for the economy. by s122604 · · Score: 1

      I take it you are not a US citizen.
      Although recent developments put in on shaky ground for us in the US, as a foreign person the 4th amendment doesn't apply to you, never has, and never will

      Nobody is debating that the NSA is free to spy away on you, in fact that's what they were started for

    119. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just adding to my post above. This spying is bringing to end a really cool worldwide party, the wild wild west internet. The end of an era.

    120. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For every complex problem, there are solutions that are simple, obvious, and wrong." - Anon (not H. L. Mencken)

    121. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason I'm neither shocked nor outraged by the news is that I've assumed it's been going on forever. I've been on the political Left since the 1970s, and, face it, we're used to being spied on, harassed, tossed in jail for little or nothing, and generally having government get in the way of our lives. Amateurs may be surprised by recent revelations, those with experience always assumed that if you're going to speak out, you will become a target. I'd pretty much take that certainty as an axiom of history.

      Not only are we on the Left used to it, we have seen history prove that what we claimed about this harassment was true: COINTELPRO, Nixon's "Enemies List" and overt abuse of Federal institutions against his opponents, Reagan's infiltration of groups against his wars in Central America and labeling them "terrorist" (cf a group called CISPES), Bush II infiltrating groups against his wars in the Mid East and spying on EVERYbody. Now we know (after assuming as much) that Obama is continuing the game.

      So, here's my question to those on the political Right: now that you know you're being spied on by the government, how do YOU like it?
       

    122. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we must maintain "the purity and essence of our natural fluids".

    123. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >stuff snowden clamed he had

      Snowden died over Avignon.

    124. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just need to vote in more independent politicians. SIMPLE. Especially effective are one platform politicians, these politicians have one point to make, one law to change, or one issue to remedy. VOTE IN THESE POLITICIANS. It works very well in democracies everywhere. DO NOT VOTE FOR A MAJOR PARTY. As the years pass things will change.

    125. Re:Good for the economy. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      What is your point? If we wanted something back from the system, we should have made it a system that wasn't so terribly abusive and in need of complete dismantling.

      I may pay more taxes than most, I also have people in my own household who live off that money. It would hit me hard as I suddenly get to fully take on supporting disabled family members.

      So what? That income isn't worth the very lives of people around the world, and its certainly not worth supporting this sort of blanket surveillance. End it now, and lets move on.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    126. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might you be speaking about rent-seekers, politicians, or lobbyists that would be put into this survival situation if we limited the scope and power of government?

    127. Re:Good for the economy. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Umm, East Germany wanted the wall to come down, W Germany, France and the UK all tried to stop it from happening by (quietly) pleading with the E Germans to do something to stop it. As to Rome, Roman citizens were entitled to 1kg of grain per day from the emperor via their local bakery, needless to say many Europeans didn't require conquering, they simply chose to be roman and started demanding their "bread and circuses".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    128. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Ai0TuKDtzyGOz2qB+Wpt4vMCoWAEqSm1J5qrW6ZY1U0mxiv3DbCCkg== ?

    129. Re:Good for the economy. by tri44id · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting for the National Rifle Association and gun control advocates to realize that there's no need to explicitly track gun sales any more. Anyone who's made a cellphone call from a gun show or shooting range, or used a credit card to buy ammunition, is almost certainly a gun owner, and anyone who's exchanged email with anyone who has done these things, or has even responded to an email solicitation from the NRA itself, not to mention the Facebook meeting info for your local ill-regulated militia, can be tracked and correlated for "associating with potential terrorists." Your favorite tyrannical government already knows who you are and is making plans to suppress your insurrection already.

      Or is the NRA itself so corrupted by its sponsors that it only cares about issues where the answer is "buy more guns"?

      --
      Taxation without representation is tyranny! Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands & Pacific Territories!
    130. Re:Good for the economy. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's about the boundaries of the various intelligence agencies. CIA and NSA are for foreign intelligence, and are not supposed to be spying on US citizens. FBI would investigate US citizens.

      Regardless of whether that is correct or not, the US Constitution does not prevent government agencies from doing anything it wants to, to foreigners, unless you consider the allowance for international treaties.

      If I were to summarize the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in a very simple way, I would call them a reaction against abuses of power, intending to limit what the government could do to citizens. The question of whether someone is a "us person" is therefore crucial to every aspect of the US government.

      For example, from the tone of your reply I assume you are not a "us person" and therefore you could be exported to GITMO with little fuss. I could not, because I'm a citizen. I would have to be declared an "enemy combatant" and therefore not subject to the protections of the Constitution of the country I would be accused of trying to destroy, then I could be shipped to GITMO. Huge difference, as you can see.

    131. Re:Good for the economy. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      You can limit the bandwidth. 20kb/sec is the minimum. I've seen other people advocating using free AWS for tor.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    132. Re:Good for the economy. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I bet we had people just like you back then, telling everyone it's too hard, no one cares and we shouldn't do anything.

      We Aussies took that route and the end result was pretty much the same. The closest we came to a revolution was a handful of gold miners getting shot at by some cops. The evolution of society is far more complex than portrayed in HS history class, the Boston Tea Party is seen as a significant event but it would have been futile if the existing society was not already intellectually primed for it. These singular momentous events are often more symbolic than anything else and are nearly always selected in hindsight. Australia's Eureka stockade is a fine example of a small group of revolutionaries with a valid (and popular) complaint against the crown who failed miserably to inspire those around them to join in, a more modern example would be the OWS crowd.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    133. Re:Good for the economy. by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm not a big Louie Anderson fan (slight pun intended), but he had a bit where he said something to the effect of "you want to get real change done in Washington, I'll tell ya how. Next Wednesday at noon, everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, pick up a baseball bat, or a 2x4, or a tree branch, and just start walking towards D.C.

      Where ever you live doesn't matter.....just start walking towards D.C.

      Within the hour, you'll have some change.

      Maybe it was George Carlin.....God how can I get bits from those two confused.....

    134. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point he was making, He wasnt claiming it was a good solution merely it was possible to cut taxes and balance the budget .

      ie we are going to spend $1 per tax payer in the US so we are going to tax everyone $1. You will get nothing in return for this except keeping us in jobs

    135. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful with "The Anarchist Cookbook." You could blow yourself up.

    136. Re:Good for the economy. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      Technically though under the constitution, foreigners get the same rights as citizens

      No. The Constitution talks about "citizens" and "persons" and fairly clearly distinguishes that they are not the same thing. An immigrant non-citizen in the USA is a "person" and does not have the right to vote, but does get other rights as a person.

      Not until 2008 did the question of foreigners outside of the U.S. get a formal statement, thanks to a Supreme Court decision, regarding whether they get protections. The entire purpose of building GITMO was for foreigners held outside of the U.S. based on this premise.

      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      It's pretty clear that we have at least 3 divisions - citizens, persons, and persons in a state's jurisdiction. There is enough legal wiggle room to say that this excerpt does not apply to the US government, because it is not a state. And the meaning of "due process" as it relates to foreign nationals is one of those arguable bits. It gets to be a legal quagmire at this point, which is why in my earlier post I said the government can do pretty much anything it wants to to foreigners outside the US.

      The legal system means the Executive branch gets to do first, get caught, and years later get told it can't do that anymore, typically with very little punishment. Million dollar settlement? Not even a blip on the radar.

      The Constitution APPLIES to everyone, that is clear. The rights granted are NOT granted to everyone. And the crucial bit is HOW the Constitution applies. Unless something else has happened, "due process" could be as simple as declaring what the process is and waiting for someone to complain.

    137. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flaw in my cunning plan is that there would need to be recipients for this to work. I may have to label it as porn.

      Then that really would make you criminal.

    138. Re:Good for the economy. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The flaw in my cunning plan is that there would need to be recipients for this to work. I may have to label it as porn.

      Then that really would make you criminal.

      Hm. I guess it could actually *be* porn, but I'd need some to torrent... Where does one find porn on the internet?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    139. Re:Good for the economy. by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      When a private company does it (and they do all the time), it is rewarded by an increase on their stock price and year end bonuses for the leadership.

      BTW it's Social Security not a retirement fund. It's insurance against bad luck or bad genes or bad parenting.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    140. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck are you capitalizing Tor? That's now how they do it. Nor 'socks'.

    141. Re:Good for the economy. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The "government" WAS the boomers. They made this promise to themselves and put the bill on a group of people who were not even born yet.

      Woah slow down there, I am a "boomer" (but not of the US variety), today's government is staffed by boomer's but until very recently it WAS staffed by WW2' war babies and before that WW2 veterns. Mandatory superannuation contributions (paid directly to the fund by your employer) started here in Oz in the late 80's, the funds are invested in approved managed funds and basically ride along with the ups and downs of the economy, however the funds offer all sorts of options as to where to invest your money (eg: gold, stocks, green tech, bricks and mortar, etc) you can even set up your own fund if you are into that sort of thing. The government doesn't owe me a penny, but it has forced me to save for my retirement in a way that I can't get at it until I'm 55 and penalizes me with double the tax for taking a lump sum and blowing it all before I'm 60. I just turned 54, mine is staying where it is for at least another 10yrs, then I probably sell up and move to the country closer to my three grandkids (where I can buy a house outright with the equity I have in my current home). Another good feature is that you can't lose an account due to job hoping, homelessness, ect. The government tracks inactive accounts via tax file numbers and "parks" them in a default (low yield, high security) fund until they are reclaimed/returned.

      At the end of the day this sort of enforced saving regime makes my own 80yr old parents a lot less expensive for society to maintain in a humane manner, they faithfully invested in super every month without being forced to by the government and currently receive a pension of $0.00 from the government and have just returned from a holiday to the grand canyon. The reason that we have things like taxpayer funded pensions is that humans don't want to see grandma (or her friends) tossed on the scrap heap after doing their bit to build and maintain our civilization. It's also key to reducing the number of offspring a society produces to ensure they are looked after in their old age, and finally the funds themselves play an important role in building the infrastructure that keeps us all from starving to death.

      Anyway, believe me when I say it really won't be long before you are thinking to yourself where did the last 30yrs go and how the hell am I going to afford to enjoy retirement.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    142. Re:Good for the economy. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      What kind of horseshit rhetoric is this? From all accounts, there are not enough TOR nodes to support much torrent activity. TOR project itself has explained this as well as common attacks against TOR users. I doubt performance is much better in 3 years. So let me re-phrase.

      You cannot use Tor to download as the speed is too slow. In fact, you will most likely use it for communication purposes such as e-mails, web browsing, instant messaging, and other low-bandwidth activities.

      TCP, IP, UDP are communication protocols, and anything that happens over them is a form of communication. Sharing software like linux distributions, source or binary, is communication. You're not going to do a lot of it over TOR.

    143. Re:Good for the economy. by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Why does it matter if someone is a "us person"? Fuck off spying on me America.

      Bought dogs, bought dogs what you gonna do, when the truth comes out, there'll be a noose hangin' for you, bought dogs, bought dogs.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    144. Re:Good for the economy. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Why does it matter if someone is a "us person"?

      Humans are tribal, so "us persons" matter while "them persons" don't. This is especially true for something ligh the NSA which is specifically tasked with defending Us from Them.

      Or, put another way, the people who sit around my campfire are real since I can see them with my own eyes, while the people who allegedly sit around some other campfire somewhere are vaguely human-shaped mythical beings that may or may not even exist. Why worry about them, any more than you would about fairies or unicorns?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    145. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are scared because they know when we get sick of it and find out all shit they been doing, we are going to come down hard.

      A generation ago perhaps, but todays public will lose interest as soon as the next episode of american idol comes out. Hey look, squirrel.

    146. Re:Good for the economy. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      The program passed in 1935 was a much smaller benefit and tax.
      The benefits were dramatically increased later.
      Also... back then a lot of old people basically died from poverty and lack of medical care (which is why social security was put in place).

      If you have a pension and investment income and you are making $100,000 a year-- then ironically, you are among those MOST likely to be getting the maximum benefits ($29000 a year for me- but scaling up to $36,000 for a younger friend of mine).

      Its the people who do NOT have a pension or investment income who are also most likely to be getting $12,000 in benefits.

      The "deal for you" doesn't work.

      Listen- unless you are willing (and the rest of society is willing) to watch you bleed out beside the hospital or die on the street from starvation or exposure, then IF you get robbed, or scammed, or make a bad financial decision (extremely likely after 65 by the way) THEN the rest of us are expected to pay your freight through higher insurance premiums and higher taxes.

      You assume (like Madof'fs victims) that you'd be different. You'd make tons of money in your investments of that roughly $120,000 bucks. And that you'd even be able to live 90 years on that money. But social security is a shared insurance. There is no way you can save enough to make it to age 99 (much less 110). But most people don't make it that long.

      If every person got just their own money, over half would run out of money long before they died. (and most likely over 75%).

      Again- the only way this concept works is if we REALLY mean it when we say, "If you don't save enough- then you die." And heck, we don't even refuse people without insurance emergency medical care without payment.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    147. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like some freedom from religion

    148. Re:Good for the economy. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      You're talking about the right "against unreasonable searches and seizures" ?

      It's not clear whether "the people" means the people of the United States, or everyone, since the Constitution usually says "citizens" or "persons". So it could apply only to US citizens. If that's the case, the NSA doesn't know if it's data about a citizen or not, and once it figures that out the data gets dumped.

      If it should apply to everyone, then we have to define what is reasonable. Is it reasonable to capture all available information in the hope that it cracks open a lead? That's the current argument.

      If you intentionally use SSL, Tor, PGP, or any other privacy tool, do you have an expectation of privacy?

      This is an important argument. If you send a letter in an envelope, you expect that it will remain unopened until it gets to the recipient, and society generally agrees. If you send a postcard, you have no expectation of privacy. If you are convinced that all mail is private because sealed letters are private, you have an expectation of privacy. But most of society would see that no such expectation is legitimate.

      If you use HTTP or POP or some instant messenger, all without encryption, you may *expect* privacy even though you are sending data to third parties, and it might get copied, and not just moved. Society in general would agree that people would expect it to be private - but if they knew how the internet works, they would probably change their minds.

      If you use Tor, you obviously expect privacy, and society would agree. But here's the tricky part. The exit node has unencrypted data. Considering that some data includes IP addresses inside the packets, not just in the TCP or UDP headers, you are not always as anonymous as you think.

      Now, if knowing the technical details makes you change your expectation of privacy, do you really have an expectation of privacy? There are lots of people who are prosecuted based on social media like FaceBook. They expected privacy, and obviously are just idiots.

      Phone records and backing information has been "knowingly exposed" to a third party, even if you expect them to keep it to themselves. Police can just ask for those, and the phone company or bank can just hand the information over. They can refuse, but do so infrequently from what I can tell.

      When you use HTTP, you may not consider your ISP, the hosting provider, or any intermediate hops, and society as a whole may expect privacy there, not knowing the technical details. When you use Tor, however, it is reasonable to assume that you know a little about it, at least enough to know why you want to use it.

      The front page of the Tor project leads you to believe you are perfectly safe. The "Learn more" link shows red links that are "in the clear". Because Tor is an "anonymizing" solution, it never makes the claim that your information will never be revealed - only the source of it.

      If an exit node can save every bit of data that goes in and out, do you really have an expectation of privacy? Or have you exposed information to a third party, which removes that expectation? I would argue that the ignorant masses would agree that HTTP does have an expectation, while the more informed Tor users knowingly give information to a third party, removing that expectation. Tor users retain an expectation of anonymity, which has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.

      For the record, I believe that siphoning all Tor data is not what the founding fathers intended. But a legal challenge will only cement it in case law, eventually. Especially since the policy is to dump data that is essentially inside the US only. We don't have to trust them - they are interested in foreign data.

      It is unlikely that a US citizen would have standing to bring a lawsuit to even challenge this. Once they know they have US data, it becomes uninteresting. Until then, they don't know that's what they have, and you are unlikely to be able to prove that you were harmed without iden

    149. Re:Good for the economy. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I'm a late boomer and I'm already retired.

      I saved hard.

      It's clear to me that the boomers promised themselves too much benefits and that the benefits can't be paid for. We have to cut benefits for those who are well off so we can actually afford to offer them to those who are penniless.

      To be fair tho-- on researching it again-- most of the horrible changes occurred in the 1970s 20% benefit increases were recognized as unsustainable within 10 years in the 1980s).
      We boomers were in high school until 1978.

      All we've done was not really fix the problem from 1980 (really 1988ish) to 2013. (lots of half measures and quite a few means testing type changes).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    150. Re: Good for the economy. by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      Perhaps TFA is wrong... Seems to me that breathing gets someone targeted by the NSA.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    151. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we just need to write a Spam Generator that sends out billions of encrypted stuff to US-citizens to create government jobs?

      Nice!

      As noble as that might seem, you will be undermining national security and wasting your own tax money.

      As if I could EVER fuck that up more than the current regime. Try again, 'cause that bullshit sure as hell ain't a deterrent for our government.

      Unfortunately, history has proved time and again, that even the most dire of fucked up organizations and situations can become even worse. Better is not the only option. You might want the current level of of national security, and lower taxes under the current system, rather than a guarantee of lower national security and even higher taxes.

      Please fight the current wrongs that you perceive, but do it intelligently.

    152. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Here's a deal for you: give me back all the money I put into the system.
      >> Pay me back. I'll worry about myself. But don't you dare promise me
      >> that you'll take care of me in the future if I give you money I worked to
      >> earn today and then renege on the deal. That's patently dishonest.

      ++googleplex

      You want to piss me off to the point that I start talking about reform and revolution,
      then just take away what I have worked all my life to pay into according to your rules,
      my retirement.

      I'll spend my last cent to fight a government that goes back on a promise to me.

    153. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That a real rich on the "Information Wants to be Free" Internet, of all places, you think spying, surveillance, observing, etc. can be discouraged or prevented.

    154. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't promise themselves too much. Promised everyone a reasonable share. Later lawmakers said I want more then them and I will bet the stock market will always go up.

      We need to start over with a new set of politicians and non-elected power brokers that are willing to document what they do and the blocks they encounter.

    155. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I use TOR for the same reason I wrap my house in tinfoil."

      That sounds more like it.

    156. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it's not your stuff being searched.

    157. Re:Good for the economy. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Agreed, however TOR provides an anonymous network (or as much as can be) if your client is insecure (in the case of the one link you referenced re: Bittorrent clients) then you may be exposed, hence they don't recommend it. Not saying you can't, but anyway.. I wouldn't do it because yeah, the performance would probably suck. There may be other attacks based on theory or practice against TOR but as the original posting article states, the NSA is possibly watching TOR under the guise:

      For instance, a person whose physical location is unknown—which more often than not is the case when someone uses anonymity software from the Tor Project—"will not be treated as a United States person, unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person's communications give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person,"

      So net, net, if they see traffic where they don't know where it originates or is destined to, you're considered a viable candidate for data collection unless they find out you're in the US and a citizen. Wow, I wonder what that algorithm looks like? They don't specifically say TOR is being watched, but it would increase your chances. That's like standing 10 miles from a nuclear test explosion = being watched, vs standing in uranium mine for 10 years = possibly watched. At a minimum, I would imagine that they'd be watching the exit node traffic and any other peers they can identify since a lot is publicly available there are a lot of exit nodes in the US and in friendly countries. If those other countries are friendly, they may just let the NSA tap in at the far end. So, you originate in the US, your traffic is in a TLS wrapper, it goes to France, then to .. then exits in the UK, or Sweden.. Anyway, this is supposition.

      I'd just watch out for those TOR exit nodes in unfriendly territory.. Say, an exit node in Afghanistan or Lebanon, maybe Syria (that's a joke by the way)

      Note, that above link although the article is from 2010, the data from teksimple.com appears to be kept up to date I'm not sure about the KML file though.

      Shit, to paraphrase Farnsworth: "now I'll need a fake ID to download ultra-porn!"

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    158. Re:Good for the economy. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And people wonder why there is so little love for America, when it treats everyone who isn't American as sub-human with no basic rights. Then America complains that the Chinese are spying on it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    159. Re:Good for the economy. by allo · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you do not want to make tor unusable by your "spam". So try to create something, which is useful for tor users and generates the traffic.

    160. Re:Good for the economy. by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      I suspect that's why travelling and meeting disimilar people is good. It makes them real people in one's mind and you get used to the fact that there are differences between parts of the world which aren't necessarily "wrong". I've just moved to the US and have met a person that is opinionated and has never been outside the US... It has been a very interesting experience seeing how that forms a person.

    161. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Constitution does not even apply to Americans. See the Manning case.

    162. Re: Good for the economy. by s122604 · · Score: 1

      So does your government not do the same? Does the intelligence gathering services of YOUR country apply the equivalent of 4th ammmendment rights to non citizens? That's right, they don't....
      it's the fucking world we live in, deal with it

    163. Re:Good for the economy. by SJHiIlman · · Score: 2

      (And note that just because you consider it unreasonable doesn't mean that the law does.)

      Oh, I'm well aware of that. If the government had a bit of intelligence and some morals, they wouldn't be groping people at airports or collecting the metadata of millions of Americans.

    164. Re: Good for the economy. by doccus · · Score: 1

      Well, no., since you ask. Not due to any 4th amendment rights, but rather, because we can't simply print as much money as we need. Our intelligence programs must work within a limited budget, so the only foreign nationals we spy on are those who pose a significant and present threat ;-) Some countries such as certain eastern ones have their "spy" programs supplemented by US funds, so they can also afford to "accidentally" spy on more people than is reasonable, but that is not the norm...

    165. Re:Good for the economy. by doccus · · Score: 1

      \

      For example, from the tone of your reply I assume you are not a "us person" and therefore you could be exported to GITMO with little fuss. I could not, because I'm a citizen. I would have to be declared an "enemy combatant" and therefore not subject to the protections of the Constitution of the country I would be accused of trying to destroy, then I could be shipped to GITMO. Huge difference, as you can see.

      Well, I guess you haven't heard of the NDAA act yet.. that removes the restrictions you believe apply to the US citizen....

    166. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's incredibly easy to run a Tor node on EC2. https://cloud.torproject.org/

    167. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier than you think. I bet you were 6 years old when you learned how to manipulate a power switch.

    168. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doh!

      Only Americans are able to hold their Government Accountable.

      Thats why the US Government has a spy party for non-Americans

      Thats why they can practice rendition and setup/collaborate in imprisoning terrorists suspect outside US borders. Where they are free to torture, kill or hold without trial.

      Americans would quickly invoke their well meaning and (ideally) strong constitution respecting their rights.

      If this can be done, now can one imagine what the government does outside of US borders where there's less scrutiny, where no such constitutional rights exist? From spying to imprisonment & torturing which would otherwise be unlawful under American law.

      I wonder what happens with NSA data requests for non-US citizens where companies do not feel the threat of sharing or disclosing that data? This is where Europe is just a lil bit helpful as it comes down heavy and at times unforgivingly on privacy issues? But just a lil bit, what now with this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

      Best ever solution, reduce reliance on some of their services.

      I see the likes of Disqus being very good sources repositories to run all sorts of AI agents against...

      @fr!

    169. Re: Good for the economy. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually the UK does apply human rights laws to foreigners, and part of that includes the right to privacy except in very specific circumstances. Monitoring everyone is clearly illegal, and it seems that GCHQ has some questions to answer on that front.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    170. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a government employee who thinks legal action should be taken against NSA, PRISM, TSA and other USG efforts to spy/contol us, I take offense as nospam007's comment. That and the fact that it would generate government contractor jobs, not government jobs. Thank you bushit and chainy!

      How is that for a jab? ;^)

    171. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously never took a defensive driving course. Cue to scene from rendition, naked American screaming "But I didn't do anything wrong!!"

      Gaia, I hope this reply doesn't quote the parent message...

    172. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socks is not encrypted at all, and relying on amazon's (or any other) vps for anonymity is about as dumb as you can get. Their network topology is well-defined and logged, your server is closely associated with your payment info, amazon does their own bit of tracking for marketing, and "may resist secret demands for your info" is not good enough, by any means. It's not just "not as sophisticated as tor;" it's not even comparable.

      Also, get a chemistry book. And get off my lawn, hehe

    173. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The good old dd copying the endless streams of /dev/urandom, adding twofish flavour will do the trick.

    174. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By ze way.....are YOUR papers in orda ? Let me see.

    175. Re:Good for the economy. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      i wonder could you set one up on the fee tier of amazon web services

      "Fee tier" or "free tier"? Whatever ; I'm pretty sure that would violate ToS on several points.

      or would it to quickly burn through its bandwidth?

      As soon as it gets known about ... you bet it would.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    176. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed-overwhelm the NSA!

    177. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot use Tor to download as the speed is too slow. In fact, you will most likely use it for communication purposes only.

      Right, because anything less than 20mbps down is unusable, right? If it's that important that what you're downloading be done anonymously, of course you can use TOR to download things. Now, that's not to say you can securely use tor to download things using Bittorrent, though that's another matter, due to the way bittorrent works (and in the meantime, using bittorrent over Tor is a serious abuse of the Tor network, which already has major latency issues, and is generally very frowned upon). I have heard of people routing only the tracker communications through tor, while leaving the p2p stuff on the clearnet, though off the top of my head I don't recall the specific benefits and drawbacks of doing so, other than that it would provide a fog for some types of pirate hunting, and meanwhile not majorly impact on Tor's latency.

    178. Re:Good for the economy. by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      The entire reason you might use Tor is because you want to hide what you're doing from the authorities... They have suspicion that something dodgy is going on, and they're investigating it, that's what we pay them to do.

      Choosing to be private is not "dodgy" behaviour. Your private words and images can be used against you by those who wish you harm or to steal your property. Taking precaution to keep your communication private from people other then your intended target is not suspicious behaviour at all... and it should be the standard for all communication online.

      Likewise, choosing to be anonymous is not dodgy. I wouldnt feel comfortable having to swipe my id into a computer every time I walk into a store or restaurant to buy something. I wouldnt feel comfortable carrying a cell phone that tracks my movement around a city. I wouldnt feel comfortable having credit cards that broadcast some of my personal information using RFID tags. So why should my exact location and viewing behaviour be tracked when I walk around sites online?

      Currently we live in a world where things we intend to keep private are broadcast to many other parties. There is no reason for this, except to allow authority to perform mass surveillance and make it easier for those who wish to do harm to us by using our own private information against us. Using encryption and remaining private is not at all dodgy... it is natural and should be the practice of any good citizens wishing to reduce crime and unreasonable searches.

    179. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main cause four "two party domination" is the plurality voting systÃme. Approval voting would bring back democracy.

    180. Re:Good for the economy. by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Why do you use envelopes for snail mail? Do you have something to hide? I think you should be investigated unless you put your letter in a clear ziploc bag with a stamp on it.

    181. Re:Good for the economy. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It's late but here are the people ADDED to social security after 1935 with dates (its from the wiki).

              1935 All workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65.
              1939 Age restriction eliminated; seamen, bank employees added; additional domestic workers and food-processing workers removed
              1946 Railroad and Social Security earnings combined to determine eligibility for and amount of survivor benefits.
              1950 Regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Nonfarm self-employed (except professional groups). Federal civilian employees not under retirement system. Americans employed outside United States by American employer. Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. At the option of the State, State and local government employees not under retirement system. Nonprofit organizations could elect coverage for their employees (other than ministers).
              1951 Railroad workers with less than 10 years of service, for all benefits. (After October 1951, coverage is retroactive to 1937.)
              1954 Farm self-employed. Professional self-employed except lawyers, dentists, doctors, and other medical groups. Additional regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Homeworkers. State and local government employees (except firemen and policemen) under retirement system if agreed to by referendum. Ministers could elect coverage as self-employed.
              1956 Members of the uniformed services. Remainder of professional self-employed except doctors. By referendum, firemen and policemen in designated States.
              1965 Interns. Self-employed doctors. Tips.
              1967 Ministers (unless exemption is claimed on grounds of conscience or religious principles). Firemen under retirement system in all States.
              1972 Members of a religious order subject to a vow of poverty.
              1983 All federal civilian employees hired after 1983; members of Congress, the President and Vice-President and federal judges; all employees of nonprofit organizations. Covered state and local government employees prohibited from opting out of Social Security.
              1990 Employees of state and local governments not covered under a retirement plan.[57]

      It was around 1980 (after 20% increases to benefits passed in the 1970's) that they realized social security would go bankrupt in the 21st century.

      And in the 30 years since then, the boomers have fixed nothing. note: I'm a boomer.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    182. Re: Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart idea.

    183. Re: Good for the economy. by hawguy · · Score: 1

      "I use TOR for the same reason I wrap my house in tinfoil."

      That sounds more like it.

      Yes, it's clear that Anonymous Cowards like yourself don't value anonymity so you sign every post with your full name and email address since you don't have anything to hide and don't care who knows what you said online.

    184. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we just need to write a Spam Generator that sends out billions of encrypted stuff to US-citizens to create government jobs?

      Nice!

      If you want to try and bring down the tor network at the same time, then yes.

    185. Re:Good for the economy. by notequinoxe · · Score: 1

      I use TOR for the same reason I close my curtains at night and don't keep my personal journal out on the front porch with a sign that says "read me!". I just don't like other people snooping on my private life. Though if I had to choose between some random guy on the street watching my browsing activity or the NSA, I'd choose the guy on the street because he's probably only doing it because he's nosy, but the NSA is doing it to see if they can link me to terrorism.

      Ok, but wasn't Tor originally designed for the US Naval Research Laboratory? Government organizations being thick as thieves as one would expect, makes sense that they'd have a way to snoop in that software. That's what I'd do, anyway...advertise it as being totally safe, but at the same time having a way of controlling it. Color me paranoid or common-sensical or whatever

    186. Re:Good for the economy. by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      [...]government will start getting inundated with my AL QAEDA schemes.

      It's funny how the last two uppercased words can also be considered part of your comment and it still makes perfect sense.

    187. Re:Good for the economy. by lgw · · Score: 1

      A desire for privacy should never under any circumstances be construed as an excuse to violate privacy. Heck, I think we need a constitutional amendment that says so.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    188. Re:Good for the economy. by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      And yet, I still 100% support the idea that if a police officer sees a guy in a back alley passing a package to another guy, and trying to hide it, that they should investigate what just happened.

    189. Re:Good for the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except no, the government back pension insurance fund was created because so many public companies do exactly what you're saying. No one goes to jail. The system just goes bankrupt.

    190. Re: Good for the economy. by Troy+from+Montana · · Score: 1

      It is ok if God knows your evil thoughts but not ok for your neighbors or government to know about the other real you? Whatever...

    191. Re:Good for the economy. by Troy+from+Montana · · Score: 1

      sure it is...just do not tell anyone while doing it. Just like when a bill collector calls your boss and gets you fired. Not their business but they use it to decide whether they like you...and being "liked" by some groups can get you the trouble you deserve.

    192. Re: Good for the economy. by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It is ok if God knows your evil thoughts but not ok for your neighbors or government to know about the other real you? Whatever...

      I'm ok with God, Unicorns, The Tooth Fairy and other imaginary beings knowing all of my thoughts and activities. The stuffed teddy bear in my bedroom watches everything I do and I'm ok with that too.

      It's only when surveillance crosses over to the real world that I have a problem with it.

  2. Uhm, guys? by waddgodd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given the recent revelations about the NSA dragnets of literally every single email, call, text, and pretty much any other form of electronic communication, it's pretty much a given that the best way to attract the NSA's attention is fog a mirror.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
  3. non-issue by TCM · · Score: 5, Informative

    You are supposed to use HTTPS only over Tor anyway and transmit no identifying data in other cases, respectively. Tor already assumes the existence of such an adversary as the NSA, so what's the story here?

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    1. Re:non-issue by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tor already assumes the existence of such an adversary as the NSA, so what's the story here?

      That TOR is right. Even in countries that are not a far-from-my-bed dictatorship.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:non-issue by Jartan · · Score: 2

      The story here is that if you use Tor you might be flagging yourself as a "valid US target".

    3. Re:non-issue by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are supposed to use HTTPS only over Tor anyway and transmit no identifying data in other cases, respectively. Tor already assumes the existence of such an adversary as the NSA, so what's the story here?

      The way I see it, if you use the internet without TOR or VPN etc then everything is out in the open and the NSA logs everything and keeps everything IF OR UNTIL they determine you are a US citizen.

      Or, you can use TOR or VPN or whatever and the NSA will log everything and keep everything - and consider your actions suspicious.

      Moral of the story - If you use TOR or VPN for anything interesting you better make sure you do it right. If you don't use TOR or VPN then don't do anything interesting.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    4. Re:non-issue by BaronAaron · · Score: 1

      You are supposed to use HTTPS only over Tor anyway and transmit no identifying data in other cases, respectively.

      Until the adversary starts issuing warrants for the private server certificate keys to the entities hosting the HTTPS services you accessed over Tor.

      Not only do you want to encrypt your Tor traffic, but you also want to only access services that are not under the jurisdiction of the adversary.

    5. Re:non-issue by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      You are supposed to use HTTPS only over Tor anyway and transmit no identifying data in other cases, respectively.

      It is already widely suspected that the major signing certificates are compromised so that the NSA can do man-in-the-middle. Therefore, even if you are using Tor, the details of your HTTPS browsing can come to the attention of NSA.

    6. Re:non-issue by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      Good for them. By the time they figure out a single persons message that person will already have passed away from old age.

    7. Re:non-issue by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I don't see this as surprising.

      If you're using TOR to try and conceal your country of origin, don't be surprised when a government agency which is allowed to spy on foreign communication might mistake your traffic for that of a foreign communication. The harder you make it to identify your communication as American, the less likely they are to legally 'ignore' your traffic.

    8. Re:non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Typical https is compromised by the NSA. You'll need to use a self-signed cert. I don't think Google, et. al. are going to install your cert, though.

    9. Re:non-issue by absurd2718 · · Score: 2

      I do see it as surprising, however, that a government agency wants to record my network data when I'm just using a VPN to securely connect to my company's network to get some damn work done. This is yet another case where "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a horrible rationalization for invasive surveillance.

    10. Re:non-issue by allo · · Score: 1

      you should not trust ssl. not if the nsa is your enemy and you have any "big" CAs in your list of trusted CAs.

    11. Re:non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moral of the story - If you use TOR or VPN for anything interesting you better make sure you do it right. If you don't use TOR or VPN then don't do anything interesting.

      *Or*, everyone should use TOR and VPN for everything, and thus the NSA would be inundated with encrypted connections from inside the US to the 'outside world' and would waste tons of processing power trying to decrypt all that traffic... not knowing, of course, which might be 'terrorist' activity and which is just Joe Public browsing porn or reading slashdot.

  4. Read article on TOR, get targeted by techsimian · · Score: 2

    Aren't they violating the millennium act? I suppose that's only if they try to circumvent an encryption scheme....

    1. Re:Read article on TOR, get targeted by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aren't they violating the millennium act? I suppose that's only if they try to circumvent an encryption scheme....

      It's the government doing this. That makes it legal, sorta. At least it is sorta legal if you wanna bag them terrorrorrorrorrists.

      Personally, I think the terrorrorrorrorrists already won.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Read article on TOR, get targeted by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      It would be like scaring a bull to get it out of a china shop. They may run but I doubt that you could consider that a win.

    3. Re:Read article on TOR, get targeted by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Shit, use the T-word now and you can get rid of all sorts of annoying problems. It's like that scene from "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie" where Paul Rubens (of Pee Wee Herman fame) is on the phone trying to get the police to come and arrest 'Los Guys' because they are doing a B&E to get the luggage.. (Funny Scene) anyway the cops are paying him lip service and he finally says "Look I think they're Iranians!" .. All of a sudden SWAT shows up with dozens of squad cars, megaphones blaring.... This was 1980, the embassy hostage situation was front page news everyday... Man, we're still having problems with Iran, after over 30 years, WTF. Anyway...

      The point here is that I just read this Article today and it's about a local water official who at a meeting where customers were vetting complaints about the quality of their drinking water (cloudy, yucky, filthy shit) he blurts out and repeats to a stunned crowed:

      “But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.”

      So our society has now determined, or this poor misguided retard, that complaining about your water is a possible act of Terrorism? WTF.. We now treat common criminal as Terrorist acts now, if you live in New York it seems. I'm sorry I'm going to do a Farnsworth and get the fuck off this planet!

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:Read article on TOR, get targeted by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After 9/11 there were things done that made sense such as equipping airliners with armored cockpit doors, not allowing knives or axes or chainsaws in carry on, but collectively we should have kept a stiff upper lip, rebuilt the damn towers 1 story higher and said "It's going to take more than that to change us". Instead we went whining and cowering to the corner and those seeking more power ceased the opportunity telling us "they'd make us safe". I've read that line in enough history books to know whenever those in power start making that claim, bad things happen. Really bad things.

      If you want to live in a free and open society the consequence of such is that sometimes people do bad things. That is the price of such a society. I think in my parents and certainly my grand parents generation they understood this. I put a lot of people off when I say this: but 3000 people die when bad guys crash planes into buildings. Well maybe we should look at things like the cockpit doors and explore air marshal programs. But the Patriot Act? No thanks. If it means 3000 people have to die now and then compared to having to live in a surveillance state, then so be it. 3000 people have to die. It's the price of the very freedoms we claim we so desire. So when bad guys do bad things, lets as a society help those directly effected the best ways we can, but we're never going to be safe. It's a dangerous world. And we as a society in the US don't seem to want to wake up to that reality.

      Now I look around and wonder if Hobbes wasn't right: people are stupid and need to be ruled over by Kings. Because that what it seems like people have been "wanting" these past 12 years...

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    5. Re:Read article on TOR, get targeted by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Couple things, really...

      People are 'wanting a king' to rule them for the last decade or so because the media tells them that's what they want, a government run by a strong man who will take care of them. We're told if we have nothing to hide, why should we fear surveillance? After all, as long as Jersey Shore is on at its regular time and uninterrupted, who cares, so we're told.

      My solution to the 'cockpit problem' is weld a bulkhead across the fuselage and have entry to the cockpit from a hatch forward of the bulkhead, no access from inside the passenger area. I believed that to be the solution back in the late 60's/early 70's when it seemed that every other day a plane got hijacked to Cuba. And yeah, back in the day, they used to put an air marshal or 2 on every flight. Not sure when they stopped.

      Not sure when it happened, but it seems we don't teach 'The tree of liberty must occaisionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants; that is its natural manure' anymore. Freedom is a bit messy, and sometimes blood must be spilled. It's an imperfect world, and to believe otherwise seems to be wishful thinking at best. History is full of instances where people believed that all you had to do was put down your sword and paradise was at hand. It was -- at the hands of the soldiers killing the pacifists. Great idea, but I don't think humanity has evolved that far yet...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:Read article on TOR, get targeted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistically, you are 1000's of times more likely to get killed in a car accident than you are in a terror attack. Where is the 'war on cars'? Lets send some drones in to drop hellfire missiles on GM, Chrysler, and Ford.

    7. Re:Read article on TOR, get targeted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're rigth, man.
      You don't must kill your enemy, if You can make him paranoic.

      Welington Dias,
      From (oh my God) Brazil!

  5. Anyone else notice a pattern? by spacepimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They keep stretching the parameters and scope of what they can do. Of course that is only after they have been caught lying about the scope to begin with. Does anyone still believe them? I imagine quite soon they will start declaring that they need to have a back door to all encryption just in case you might do something wrong.

    1. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by OffTheLip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you sure they "keep stretching the parameters and scope" or are we just learning the scope and depth of what they have already been doing?

    2. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by robinsonne · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, apart from the ones that are anti-government all the time, yes...a great many people believe them. Hook, line, & sinker.

    3. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      of course they are stretching it. I mean they tell us what we can deal with, then we find out more,, so they justify that, but down the road we find out even more so they justify that. Where does it actually end is what id like to know

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by vettemph · · Score: 0

      Both. ...Mohammed jihad triple dirka rocket launcher!

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    5. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does anyone still believe them?

      Yes. And they're a part of the problem.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      triple dirka rocket launcher!

      Sounds like a Borderlands 2 Legendary weapon.

    7. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by ArcadeX · · Score: 1

      They're only a problem if that vote or reproduce.... not much danger of the first one.

      --
      An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
    8. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no new revelations here. There have been numerous court rulings saying this stuff isn't protected. These exact programs were leaked in 2006, but no one seemed to care. About the only thing that changed is that the companies used to give this data voluntarily and now they give it under a FISA court order. Maybe you personally couldn't deal with the truth before and now you've finally accepted it, but the story hasn't changed. There hasn't been any stretching, these are the exact rules the NSA has always publicly claimed to use. If you didn't assume they were going to the full extent allowed by law, then that's your foolishness.

    9. Re: Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just cause WE FOUND OUT about one scheme doesn't mean they aren't THREE schemes ahead. Which means all this "grief" means absolutely nothing to day-to-day operations.

    10. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      They keep stretching the parameters and scope of what they can do. Of course that is only after they have been caught lying about the scope to begin with. Does anyone still believe them? I imagine quite soon they will start declaring that they need to have a back door to all encryption just in case you might do something wrong.

      Are you new to the world, or is this sarcasm?

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    11. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine quite soon they will start declaring that they need to have a back door to all encryption just in case you might do something wrong.

      You can imagine all you lie, but they already have a quantum computer which makes it
      trivially easy to crack all known encryption schemes.

      If you want to keep a secret, you don't send it electronically, period.

    12. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Does anyone still believe them?

      No.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    13. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by spacepimp · · Score: 2

      A little of column A and a little of column B. Between changing the definitions to protect their lies, we are discovering the scope and the scope is being extended as well.

    14. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Where does it actually end is what id like to know"

      All your ass are belong to us! Set us up the BOMB!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      You forgot the word Ultimate. That should be in there somewhere lol.

    16. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Quantum computing is not a silver bullet. It'll break current public key encryption (Shor's algorithm) and symmetric ciphers with short key lengths (Grover's algorithm), but longer symmetric key ciphers (256 bits and longer) will remain secure.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    17. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by techsimian · · Score: 1

      ...and Cloud...

    18. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you seriously think there's a plan for it to end?

    19. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by rilles · · Score: 1

      Thank you. You are now being tracked and will be randomly jailed, beat up and messed with until you confess.

      NSA analyst under sub-contract that was outsourced to India.

    20. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, look up "Clipper Chip".

    21. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum computing is not a silver bullet. It'll break current public key encryption (Shor's algorithm) and symmetric ciphers with short key lengths (Grover's algorithm), but longer symmetric key ciphers (256 bits and longer) will remain secure.

      Even if it could crack longer cyphers (lets just say it could crack a 2048bit key in a week instead of however many thousands of years conventionally), if *everyone* started using encrypted VPN & TOR with longer keys, they'd still be overwhelmed. The more people using encryption would dramatically increase the "noise" ratio to the point they'd be wasting tons of compute power decrypting Sarah's emails to granny (with 2048bit encryption) than finding anything of potential real value.

    22. Re:Anyone else notice a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      believe

      And there's your problem: Belief.
      If you deliberately ignore reality in favor of ignorance and delusion, don't be surprised if you get fucked over.

      I think the underlying problem is, that most people don't really have a choice. They believe because they are either too traumatized, too dumb, or both.

      Hence the importances of intelligence, education and thinking for yourself. The three orthogonal dimensions of a wise mind.

  6. It's Worse Than You Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Combining the fragments of leaked information that are now public related to the NSA's programs and the legal authorities affirmed by the FISA courts and Attorney General Eric Holder, it's clear that the US government's surveillance apparatus has the potential to monitor a significant portion of US citizens' communications.

    Several reputable reports, including PBS' Frontline and NOW, have detailed the construction and operation of telecommunication interception facilities such as Room 641A. These types of facilities, which were deployed by 2003 and revealed to the general public by 2006, provide the NSA with the opportunity to access a large volume of telecommunications traffic. To use an analogy, imagine that several major mail sorting hubs in the US had "secret" rooms controlled by the NSA that all mail passed through.

    A significant portion of Internet traffic is encrypted. Online banking, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, etc. utilize standard SSL encryption to provide security. To continue the analogy, while some internet traffic is unencrypted in much the same way that postcards are mailed all the time with their messages clearly visible, many "sensitive" online communications such as the aforementioned banking and social networking services encrypt communications, similar to the way that sensitive mail communications like bank statements are usually sent in envelopes and not on postcards.

    It is not politically palatable to suggest that US government agencies can and should surveil US citizens' telecommunications in any indiscriminate fashion, and there is no clear legal authority that would permit them to do so. In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired June 17, 2013, President Barack Obama said "...if you're a U.S. person then NSA is not listening to your phone calls and it's not targeting your e-mails unless it's getting an individualized court order."

    Under the original provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the US government does have authority to conduct surveillance of communications without a court order if the parties communicating are not United States persons. More recent amendments to FISA since September 11, 2001 have expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance.

    It can be difficult to identify the geographic origin of telecommunications traffic. Tor, Virtual Private Networking, and Internet proxies provide ways for Internet users to "hide" their return addresses. There are all sorts of legal, legitimate uses for these technologies. For example, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is widely interpreted to require hospitals to use encryption technologies such as Virtual Private Networks to protect confidential medical information if it is transmitted electronically between medical facilities.

    It is also incredibly difficult to determine the nationality of a user of a telecommunications network. For example, two non-US persons could be visiting the US and using a telecommunications network in the country or a US citizen could utilize a telecommunications network when traveling outside the US.

    There's an area where it helps to extend the envelopes vs. postcards analogy a bit: encryption is, in some ways, more like mailing a letter in a combination safe where only the sender, receiver, and safe company know the combination. The whole point of encryption is that it secures communications in such a way that even if someone intercepted an encrypted message, they couldn't read it unless they knew the secret combination to decode it.

    This leads to a couple of questions:

    1. If the US government is trying its best to restrict its surveillance to non-US persons, what does it do if it accidentally intercepts and reads communications from a US person?
    2. If a large volume of telecommunications traffic, particularly traffic that is of interest to the US government, is encrypted (e.g., in opaque envelopes/combination safes without return addresses), how is it possible for t
    1. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      ... If the US government is trying its best to restrict its surveillance to non-US persons, what does it do if it accidentally intercepts and reads communications from a US person?

      Probably the same thing the Police and Federal Agencies do when they falsely arrest you. They say "Oops! So you didn't do anything wrong. But we are keeping all of your info in our database of criminals forever, just in case."

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    2. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA says that they're just gathering meta-data for US citizens... if they can tell you're a US citizen, which they usually can't because they aren't trying very hard.

      They NSA is rather clearly lying about storing only meta-data. You don't need exa-byte scale storage facilities to store meta-data.

    3. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Instead of cracking each encoded message they intercept, it would be much easier for the NSA to simply obtain the decryption codes directly from the central authorities like Symantec/VeriSign. This would greatly simplify the problem and would allow the NSA to instantly decode much of the encrypted communication it intercepts

      Symantec and VeriSign don't create the encryption keys. You do. The private key remains private. Their job is to simply add a trusted digital signature to the public key that you've produced.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    4. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A wall of text is unparagraphed. This was just a long text.

      Your inability to read and understand a coherent piece of text is your failure, not the author's.

    5. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      If you use encrypted communications point-to-point, your usage patterns are still broadly visible. Consider somebody posting illicit material to a website. If the government sees a posting go up at a particular time, and they see a usage pattern at that same time in the packet lengths & exchange orderings, they can figure out who's doing what. Of course, extend this to orders given to Verizon, Google, Facebook, etc, and there's a lot you can piece together even from private postings and access to the final server-side plaintext.

      Of course, the worst thing is that it's hard to know how susceptible this is to false positives. That's the entire reason people are seeking to move away from things that the NSA spies on, even if they're completely squeaky clean stand up citizens. They are trolling the internet looking for any indicator of terrorism; why risk acting there where you could be falsely charged? If the feds whisk a person away, and all is held under "national security" stonewalls, it's impossible to know what's going on in terms of systemic misuse and outright abuse.

    6. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even by the government's own standards, if every time you really try to get the bad guys you catch them, but sometimes you don't try and something like the Boston bombing happens, shouldn't you try more often?

      No, if something like the Boston bombing only happens every ten years (or even every year), then if you are interested in saving lives (which surely is the most important thing) the money would be better spent on other things, like perhaps improving access to health-care or better driver education to reduce car accidents, or a hundred other things.

    7. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as decrypting algorithms, if the key is based on the product of two very large primes (VLPs) it could actually already be trivial for the NSA to crack in real time. Sure it takes a humongous amount of time and processing power to brute force VLPs, but rather than doing that over and over again for each encrypted communication, why not just do it once, creating a huge look-up table for the products of the VLPs? Simply input the product, and the database immediately reports back the two prime factors and all encrypted messages are deciphered immediately.

    8. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... If the US government is trying its best to restrict its surveillance to non-US persons, what does it do if it accidentally intercepts and reads communications from a US person?

      Probably the same thing the Police and Federal Agencies do when they falsely arrest you. They say "Oops! So you didn't do anything wrong. But we are keeping all of your info in our database of criminals forever, just in case."

      Don't forget your DNA too, thanks to the Supremes they can now take your DNA just because they "arrested" you - you don't need to be found guilty of anything, they can simply stop you and trump up any charge to take you in, take your DNA... and then not bring any real charges against you... and you're "free to go", but they get to keep your DNA for "later use". That's after they strip search you while you're 'arrested' too, again thanks to SCOTUS.

    9. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Instead of cracking each encoded message they intercept, it would be much easier for the NSA to simply obtain the decryption codes directly from the central authorities like Symantec/VeriSign. This would greatly simplify the problem and would allow the NSA to instantly decode much of the encrypted communication it intercepts

      Symantec and VeriSign don't create the encryption keys. You do. The private key remains private. Their job is to simply add a trusted digital signature to the public key that you've produced.

      That's true, but with access to the certificate authorities and the whole trust structure, they can generate a valid certificate for your server and effectively be a man-in-the-middle. Unless you inspect the key fingerprints every time you connect, their phony certificate will not raise any alarms at all.

      With the CA system we use, you put all of the trust for your security into the hands of a nebulous group of companies distributed around the globe. If any single one of them isn't trustworthy, the entire system fails. It's a pretty horrible system, to be honest.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    10. Re: It's Worse Than You Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, excellent points! Actually, now I don't think I trust SSL so much..

    11. Re:It's Worse Than You Thought by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 1

      There is a new service, Startpage (dot) com, that provides a semi-TOR like service for the masses. Their servers are located in the European Union and they are under the assumption that this will protect them from the NSA. I Wonder what the aforementioned intelligence agency will try to silence them?

  7. Here's the catch, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    " Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

    1. Re:Here's the catch, by camperdave · · Score: 1

      " Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

      Great! so all they have to do is strip the locale info before handing the data to their analysts. One bounce through an offshore relay should do the trick.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Here's the catch, by vettemph · · Score: 1

      So ....guilty until proven innocent.

      I wouldn't work quite as well if everyone was consider a US citizen until proven otherwise, comrades.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    3. Re:Here's the catch, by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      It would work even better if non US citizens were not considered as subhuman.

      It's becoming a trend that every time the US government strips your rights they find a way to deny your citizenship (anwar al-waki & son) so that no one can complain.

      If you are american, you should stop excusing injustices if they don't seen to happen to "proper US citizens".

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
  8. encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    use TOR to send copies of 1984

    1. Re:encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or send a book that isn't meant for middle schoolers.

    2. Re:encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd suggest that people regularly use varying levels of encryption and send back and forth the following documents:

      1. The Bill of Rights, specifically the 4th Amendment.
      2. Cory Doctorow's Creative Commons licensed e-book versions of "Little Brother" and "Homeland"

      Once those NSA analysts crack the encryption, they'll have some worthwhile reading.

    3. Re:encryption by cpghost · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Dan Brown's Digital Fortress would be more to their gusto.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:encryption by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Or send a book that isn't meant for middle schoolers.

      Yeah, cuz we moistly red at graid skull level.

  9. aw fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aw fuck. First I get blocked from Slashdot, now this..

  10. That's the point of Tor. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, using Tor is going to attract attention. That's why we need as many people as possible to use Tor, to decrease the signal to noise ratio. If you have nothing to hide, you should be using Tor to help protect those who do.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:That's the point of Tor. by ndixon · · Score: 2

      I think this is the trigger that'll make me start using Tor as a matter of routine. I am Spartacus and all that.

      --
      Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
    2. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has nothing to hide. The people who say they have nothing to hide aren't very likely to consciously help others hide. They're either lying or delusional about what privacy means.

    3. Re:That's the point of Tor. by vettemph · · Score: 1

      No, I am Spartacus.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    4. Re:That's the point of Tor. by vettemph · · Score: 1

      I am also All That!

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    5. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

      No, I am Sparticus

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    6. Re:That's the point of Tor. by SJHiIlman · · Score: 1

      And they probably also think that their government is composed of perfect beings who could never abuse their powers or make mistakes. After all, if the government is not made up of perfect beings, the rules could change and suddenly that thing you do that you believed was harmless becomes illegal. Or maybe an individual in the government makes a mistake or decides to abuse the data?

      Yeah, everyone has something to hide, and that's especially true when you take into account the fact that governments are made up of human beings.

    7. Re:That's the point of Tor. by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 1

      If you have nothing to hide, you should be using Tor to help protect those who do.

      I was with you up until that.

      I'm in the "don't think I have anything to hide" camp (maybe I'm naïve). I also think it's perfectly legitimate not to have anything you want hidden and still not want the NSA snooping through your business.

      That said, why would I want to use Tor for no other reason than to "protect" people who are using it to cover up their misdeeds? If you're doing something that you want to hide from federal law enforcement, I'm not inclined to assist you. (If I'm missing something-which happens fairly often-please help me out.)

    8. Re:That's the point of Tor. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      That said, why would I want to use Tor for no other reason than to "protect" people who are using it to cover up their misdeeds?

      What if those misdeeds include such crimes as participating in a peaceful antiwar rally or blowing the whistle on criminal activity occurring within the government? Just because someone has something to hide does not mean that they are doing something evil.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:That's the point of Tor. by K-Sparticus · · Score: 1

      No, I am (kind of) Sparticus

    10. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Nothing to hide? Maybe I don't want the IRS to know about my phone call to a T-person.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:That's the point of Tor. by CyberKender · · Score: 1

      Not just Tor, but encrypt emails, especially ones that contain nothing of importance, and send them too. Perhaps setting up a large network of accounts that automatically send out encrypted garbage emails to each other. Add more hay to the haystack.

      --
      CyberKender
      Apparently Appointed Lord Mayor of There
    12. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, why would I want to use Tor for no other reason than to "protect" people who are using it to cover up their misdeeds?

      The point is not to help the people who are covering up "misdeeds" -- it's to help all the other people using Tor who aren't using it for anything ill by reducing the utility of just lumping everyone who uses Tor into people who are doing misdeeds, the way you just did. It weakens the whole "don't need it if you have nothing to hide" argument if people who have nothing to hide use it. The more legit users make use of a technology like this, the more legit it is. If only criminals use it, then it's fair to treat everyone who doesn't want the NSA spying on them as criminals.

      Also, keep in mind that "misdeeds" might include behavior you do approve of that the authorities don't. Speaking for myself, that might include things like blowing the whistle on NSA domestic spying programs.

    13. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You assume that people who are hiding from federal law enforcement are engaged in misdeeds.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Sparticus, and so's my wife!

    15. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tor isn't just for hiding from federal law enforcement - it hides you from corporate surveillance too. Why should your ISP be allowed to see every single porn site you visit?

    16. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe governments shouldn't blow up kids from 9000 miles away"

      Oops. Posting the above sentence is a misdeed. And as of January 20, 2009, it is officially racist to believe it.

    17. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      At first glance I thought I was being trolled. But your username has been around longer than I, so I concede.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    18. Re:That's the point of Tor. by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      I'm in the "don't think I have anything to hide" camp (maybe I'm naÃve).

      In that case would you please post your full name, current address, telephone number, social security number, mother's maiden name and a high-resoution image of your autograph (preferably with a transparent background?) Any bank account numbers and routing numbers would also be very much appreciated.

      Security is not about covering up misdeeds. It's about keeping your private information private - away from those who would take advantage of it.

    19. Re:That's the point of Tor. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I already use if for some searches that I do not want Google to associate with me (for example on Googles own misdeeds), I think I will expand on that now.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    20. Re:That's the point of Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Sparta!

  11. No targeting anyone in the USA by DeathToBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's such a comfort to the rest of us.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:No targeting anyone in the USA by Antipater · · Score: 1

      Pipe down, terrorist scum!

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
  12. TOR exit node locations by steelfood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think this is reasonable in the context of communications monitoring. TOR exit nodes are often not in the U.S., and it's reasonable to expect that traffic coming out of a TOR exit node may not originate from the U.S. I don't support this massive data collection in general, but I don't see why TOR traffic wouldn't be expected to raise red flags.

    That having been said, I'm not sure where the fire is. Unless you're stupid enough to log into your own accounts (which contain identifying information) via TOR, they can collect all they want, but they'll never tie it back to you.

    Now, could they theoretically track your traffic back to its origin if they have a complete picture of the network? It's possible, but they can only do a positive ID when there's not much TOR traffic, especially near your physical location, to begin with. That's where security by obscurity comes into play.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:TOR exit node locations by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the NSA is operating the majority of TOR nodes does that make it easier for them to identify your location? Remember that they have a rather large computer budget.

    2. Re:TOR exit node locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many TOR nodes are there? How many are run by NSA or any of the other UKUSA members? Given the cost of running a node and the budget of the NSA, how would you spend your money?

      As an aside, if the US wants to spy on US citizens, it doesn't do so directly. It asks GCHQ or one of the other UKUSA members to do it for them. This gets around those pesky FISA rules in a hurry. The other members use the same technique to get around any similar laws on their home soil. This has been SOP since the days of ECHELON: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Big_Brother/echelon_spy_in_the_sky.htm

    3. Re:TOR exit node locations by tylikcat · · Score: 2

      Yes. My recollection is this is the canonical method circumventing Tor - and the US government has always been the actor in the best position to do this.

      Running Tor is good. Running Tor exit nodes is even better, but you probably don't want to do that at home, at least at home in the US.

    4. Re:TOR exit node locations by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Probably costs something like $10K/year to operate a small server. With the NSA's budget I would expect they could operate 10K-100K servers in locations around the world. These could be used for all sorts of functions, including honeypots, monitoring, and TOR monitoring.

    5. Re:TOR exit node locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, could they theoretically track your traffic back to its origin if they have a complete picture of the network? It's possible, but they can only do a positive ID when there's not much TOR traffic, especially near your physical location, to begin with. That's where security by obscurity comes into play.

      Tor's anonymity can be broken with traffic analysis (i.e., of packet timing and sizes) by an adversary that can see both endpoints (i.e., the traffic between the user and first node, and the traffic between the exit node and destination) [1] [2]. There's a lot more work on this topic.

      Whether or not there's "much Tor traffic" around you has little to do with it. The only requirement is that YOU send enough packets via Tor for it to be possible to correlate the traffic at both endpoints. The amount of traffic needed for that may be a function of the Tor traffic around you, but it's still very possible to de-anonymize a Tor user who sends a realistic amount of data over Tor.

      It's also not necessary for the adversary to have a complete picture of the network. It's only necessary for the adversary to see that traffic at both endpoints. I suspect this is disturbingly easy for the NSA given their ability to monitor traffic at US tier-1 provider(s).

      This is currently the single most important problem Tor has. There's been much research into avoiding it, but no one has come up with a good solution. The difficulty is that there's a trade-off between latency and the power of traffic analysis. If only a small amount of latency is artificially introduced, traffic analysis is still feasible. Mix networks are not susceptible to traffic analysis because they introduce a large amount of latency and are thus useless for interactive applications.

    6. Re:TOR exit node locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily they don't have very fast tubes, very heavy iron, manpower and fancy quantum computers to break encrypted communications over internet.

    7. Re:TOR exit node locations by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      If the NSA is operating the majority of TOR nodes does that make it easier for them to identify your location? Remember that they have a rather large computer budget.

      Better off hacking a botnet full of unsuspecting people's PCs with a RAT tool and surfing from THEIR pcs. It's the only way to be secure. Forget TOR... Call it NoobNet or something.

      lol. J/K of course. Hey, here's a link to the latest justin bieber CD. Pay no attention to the warnings when you "play" it, that's just because it's sooooo HOTTTT!

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    8. Re:TOR exit node locations by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It doesn't take much of a slip-up to reveal your identity.

      Look at Panopticlick from the EFF. They can uniquely identify most computers just from the fingerprints in the browser - your collection of fonts, browser plug-ins, and other customizations are usually unique to one machine. So if you ever used Google and did anything that identifies yourself, such as purchased something online and had it shipped to your house, and you later use that same browser through Tor and surf to any site they are observing, or through any exit node under their scrutiny, or to any site loading javascripts from an NSA collaborator such as Google, they would be able to associate your anonymous activities with your identified session. (Ironically, an iPad or iPhone is usually very generic because Apple doesn't allow Safari to be modified. However, they still accept cookies and have no deliberate provisions for anonymity.)

      We also have evidence that the intelligence agencies already understand this, and are actively using such information. The Gauss malware installs a font named Palida Narrow, which enables any site you visit to surreptitiously check to see if you're infected with Gauss. It's the same idea and the same mechanism.

      To safely use Tor, you really need to be careful. You need a stock generic browser, launched from a clean OS image, and you should hope many other people are doing the same. A browser that returns randomly varying attributes to every request would be useful. Block flash, block cookies, and block javascript and all scripts entirely - you dont want Google Analytics or any of the thousand other profiling services to accidentally tag you. You need to connect from varying locations, none of which are your home. A wifi card that allows you to set a random MAC may help. And you likely need to do more - I certainly don't know everything they can observe.

      --
      John
    9. Re:TOR exit node locations by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Not exit nodes, bridge nodes. And specifically the ones you're more likely to connect to. If they're able to monitor the other end (and they can), they can link you to the destination of your TOR packetse, and whatever information your destination logs about you. If they didn't have this, they'd only be able to figure out that you're sending TOR packets, which in and of itself is not criminal (yet).

      However, I think it's also possible to trace TOR packet origins (and destinations if it's a hidden service) via perfect knowledge of the entire internet. I don't know if they have that yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did, or will soon.

      Remember, it's not the exit nodes that are important, but the bridge nodes. Exit nodes are merely the "fall guy" as it were, and should be assumed to already be compromised. Bridge nodes are what keeps your identity safe.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    10. Re:TOR exit node locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it may cost the government 10K/year, fortunately it doesn't cost even 1% of that for me or thee.

      Here's a Tor exit node:

      Get a Raspberry Pi B and a tiny USB wireless dongle.
      Load it up with Raspbian and a Tor exit node.
      Every time you stay in a hotel, stay in one with an open Wi-Fi connection. (That's most of them.)
      Put your Raspberry Pi in the wall of your room, behind a power plate, and hook up the power wart to draw power from the wires behind the plate.
      Make sure you don't leave fingerprints, DNA traces, etc.
      Turn it on and leave.

      Cost? About fifty bucks.

    11. Re:TOR exit node locations by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      However, I think it's also possible to trace TOR packet origins (and destinations if it's a hidden service) via perfect knowledge of the entire internet. I don't know if they have that yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did, or will soon.

      Very good point. The only way to prevent this is to greatly increase latency, as in Freenet. Why doesn't anybody use Freenet? Well, that would be the latency...

      Mixmaster is a great example of a design that is very hard to trace, because it had very high latency and all packets were identical in size. That means very little side-channel leakage.

    12. Re:TOR exit node locations by macmouse · · Score: 1

      The project TOR was based upon (Onion Routing) that was a research project by the U.S. Navy.
      https://www.torproject.org/about/overview

      For a quite some time, Tor was getting code contributions/updates from them.

      So, at the very least, the US government has known about it's existence from the very beginning.

      There is a non-zero probability that there is a backdoor has been put into the TOR system.
      As for how likely that is, would be anyone's guess. ::Insert conspiracy theory here::

      It is worth mentioning that the NSA *has* been caught putting in a backdoor in encryption stands in the past - see the DES Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard).

      Take it as you will

    13. Re:TOR exit node locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... To safely use Tor, you really need to be careful. You need a stock generic browser, launched from a clean OS image ...

      Simply download Tails at https://tails.boum.org and follow the instructions on that site.

  13. Exist, get targeted by the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want to know everything about everyone, which according to their dictionary somehow does not qualify as "indiscrimately".

    Captcha: justice
    LOL

  14. The darkest place is under the lamp by arf_barf · · Score: 2

    It's always true. Just send your communications directly to NSA and a bunch of other people (from a SPAM list) and ask to have it forwarded to the final recipient. It's unlikely that it will get flagged as a potential threat....

    1. Re:The darkest place is under the lamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus points if it starts and ends with a PGP header and contains a block bytes from /dev/random.

      Double bonus points if you build a spam engine that does this.

      Triple bonus points if "they" abduct you in a black van (or any color vehicle, really) and force you to show off your code before they'll let you go.

      Quadruple bonus points if you're just bluffing and are actually using it all as a smokescreen to send encrypted messages.

      Negative infinity bonus points if those messages are to your terrorist cell. That shit's not cool, and you're the reason why we can't have nice things. Asshole. I hope your house burns down. From the lemons.

  15. Technicalities by organgtool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words, since they don't know who you are and can't positively confirm that you are a U.S. citizen, then they claim they are not bound to uphold your Fourth Amendment rights despite the fact that they are likely able to confirm that you are currently located in the U.S. I'm not sure that logic would hold up in court and I hope they are challenged on this.

    1. Re:Technicalities by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The difficulty is going to be finding a plaintiff who can make a significant enough case to actually get it into court and take it to high enough levels without setting a bad precedent.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:Technicalities by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      Does this technicality allow the U.S. government to open sealed First Class mail whenever it likes? Sure its a domestic delivery but we haven't confirmed that both the sender and the intended recipient are U.S. citizens.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    3. Re:Technicalities by SJHiIlman · · Score: 1

      Who knows? They'll do or say anything to rationalize their flagrant disregard of the constitution and people's liberties in general.

    4. Re:Technicalities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a nutshell, they start with the assumption that any anonymous communication is foreign until proven otherwise, then they use the full force of the NSA to identify you. Then they are allowed to read the content of your communications to "make sure" you're domestic. At this point any regular, entirely domestic criminal activity that is uncovered by this process is considered "inadvertently" acquired and can be handed off to domestic law enforcement authorities, even if there is no connection to terrorism found.

      Read it for yourself on Exhibit A section 5-2.

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

      > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
      > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
      > shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
      > cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
      > the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      There is NO (NONE, ZERO) *probable cause* to search and seize any
      of my conversations, email, locations and purchases, or my call
      details, mail headers and transaction metadata. Nor my life, friends
      or internet stream in general. There is NO *cause* to get it from
      anyone else either. And ABSOLUTELY FUCKING ZERO *cause* to be
      mining it like this.

      The Government needs a *warrant* based on *probable cause* before
      they can get my shit, your shit, anyone's shit.

      There is NO *probable cause* to collect everyones shit, that being
      the sum of violating all the individual shits, to mine it. Nor
      *cause* to get it all in bulk from someone else.

      There is not even that 1960's bastardization of *reaonable suspicion*
      to get it either. Absent a *Warrant* based on *Probable Cause*,
      it's all a fucking illegal datamining fishing expedition.

      Can you READ? Do you understand this you stupid sheeple?

      Read the Fourth Amendment again. It is crystal clear, with zero
      ambiguity, particularly when that spirit is brought forward 230
      some years to encompass your now digital person, files and
      communications, etc.

      This collection and analysis of bulk records IS PLAINLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
      (that means ILLEGAL for you dolts out there).

      And it is still illegal, and will always be illegal, no matter what
      Obama / DoJ, Congress, and the Supreme Court / FISA have to say
      about it. PERIOD.

      Only an amendment can change that. And if you're smart, you're going
      to get up off your ass and DEMAND that your Congress starts serving
      you publicly again as your slaves (instead of them enslaving you),
      and keep that from ever happening.

      Love and defend your Constitution liberally, vociferously, violently,
      or get fucked in the ass. Your choice. There are no tecnicalities.
       

  16. Uhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, don't use Tor to encrypt your traffic (to avoid NSA snooping) because they will store your encrypted traffic?

    1. Re:Uhhhh.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Minor detail here: Tor isn't for encryption. Its for obfuscating the endpoints of Internet communications.

      The laws governing what the NSA may or may not capture and store depend partially upon whether a person is a US Person or not. The definition isn't quite the same as citizen/non-citizen. And there is no clear way to identify this status from metadata. So the NSA has a policy which says: If we can determine that both communication endpoints lie within US jurisdiction, we treat the communications as being between US Persons. All other communications will be treated otherwise. And this includes communications where endpoints have been concealed.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  17. Interesting Firefox/Chrome plugin idea by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Attach an email sig line that is the ciphertext of some small paragraph from Google News.

  18. Awesome! by drfred79 · · Score: 1

    Now if we all just start using Tor we'll give the government something to do. The message from the NSA is if you use Tor you are a criminal. Great Constitutional argument. BTW, this message was sent with TOR AND a anonomizing proxy.

    1. Re:Awesome! by cpghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BTW, this message was sent with TOR AND a anonomizing proxy.

      Too bad you just linked your slashdot user account to that proxy and TOR ID... Better blacklist that proxy and reinitialize your TOR node ASAP. Just sayin'...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:Awesome! by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      True, kinda a noob move. But Slashdot has been banning all the Tor Nodes today because the influx of Tor users has caused the website to think its a DOS attack and they haven't whitelisted the Tor Nodes. I've had to switch Tor Identities each page refresh. Slashdotters are all getting Tored up.

    3. Re:Awesome! by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has always banned Tor nodes. Way back when, I ran an exit node at home and could no longer use Slashdot (or Google, or others). Running an exit node really does have its downsides. (And Slashdot is remarkable backward for being a tech site, which we already knew.)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  19. US Citizens Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "we only target people outside of the US"

    Because people outside of the US are non-persons and as such should have no expectations of privacy when their data is held inside the US. Does no one actually think about what they are saying?

    1. Re:US Citizens Only by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Don't tell me you're as Stupid as you are Cowardly.

      They're not US Citizens and therefore don't fall under the protection of the US Constitution.

      I'd be disappointed if the FSB, "MI5" and Chinese MSS aren't trying to do the same to the US.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:US Citizens Only by Tokolosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

      So I guess "ALL men" means only US citizens? And "inalienable" does mean much of anything?

      Rights are universal, and if Americans really, truly believe in them, then they will strive to uphold them for everyone, everywhere.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    3. Re:US Citizens Only by Nutria · · Score: 1

      You're a citizen of the world, aren't you?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:US Citizens Only by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a naturalized US citizen who actually took a small quiz on this, I am honor-bound to point out that the fine quotation you have provided is actually from the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution. While it certainly reflects the aspirations of the founders, and may well represent my or your best hopes, it's not actually the law of the land. The constitution is clearer about its jurisdiction.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    5. Re:US Citizens Only by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Indeed, you are correct and thanks for pointing that out, although I did not claim it is from the Constitution.

      Nevertheless, people still pay lip service to its aspirations. But when I re-read it now, it is quite alarming to see how relevant the list of grievances are becoming.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    6. Re:US Citizens Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as long as we are talking about the white landowners with penis, yes, all men are created equal.
      Also declaration not constitution

    7. Re:US Citizens Only by techsimian · · Score: 1

      The constitution protects ANYONE under its jurisdiction...even Canadians (if they are in the US). 14th amendment, equal protection etc... etc...

    8. Re:US Citizens Only by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Foreigners in this country (whether legal or illegal) *do* deserve extra scrutiny from our security services, and they *don't* deserve the same quantity or quality of protections as do US citizens.

      (The questions then become those of degree and scale, and the answers aren't simple.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:US Citizens Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon me for interrupting, but thanks perhaps to the inadequacies of the US Education system you appear to be amongst growing ranks of those who fail to read with comprehension even the first three words of the US Constitution. The US Constitution does not "afford protection" to anyone, it is a set of rules by which the government was granted existence by the citizens and how it is supposed to operate, in the end it is "We the People" who are supposed to make sure the government attends properly operation orders as detailed in the US Constitution.

      There are reasons the US was set up as a Republic and not a Democracy. There are reasons we have trial by jury. There we reasons why other checks and balances were written into the US Constitution. The government is intended to not be a popularity contest, it was not intended to purchase favoritism either, unfortunately many of the checks and balances have been removed, often via influenced demands of "We the People", gone is the open multiparty elections with the second place runner in presidential elections becoming the VP, gone are the Senators picked by the state legislatures, gone is the Federal Government being funded by the "good graces" of the states, and the list grows ever faster from there towards tyranny. Juries, soap boxes and the ballot boxes are where the citizens are make their first attempts at making sure their government behaves as ordained in the US Constitution. When the laws aren't written and/or applied properly then citizens on the jury are supposed to toss them, when elected officials don't act properly then first the government is supposed to toss them and if they fail then the citizens have a bigger clearance job to do while keeping their boxes in proper order.

      Those rights previously mentioned are "inherent natural rights", they were not created by the US Constitution, they belong to everyone and the government is denied by "We the People" documented by the US Constitution, from doing anything bypass them. "We the People" are failing severely due to the "education" we have received to do our jobs. With apologies to Pink Floyd, "All in all, it's just another brick in the wall". And with apologies to Edgar Allan Poe, citizens are giving up their Liberty for a virtual "Cask of Amontillado".

    10. Re:US Citizens Only by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Foreigners in this country (whether legal or illegal) *do* deserve extra scrutiny from our security services, and they *don't* deserve the same quantity or quality of protections as do US citizens.

      Whether you agree with that or not, foreigners both inside and outside this country do deserve the same respect for their rights, including "the right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". The U.S. government may not have a mandate to actively protect non-citizens, but it does have an obligation to respect universal rights, regardless of citizenship.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    11. Re:US Citizens Only by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      As a naturalized US citizen who actually took a small quiz on this, I am honor-bound to point out that the fine quotation you have provided is actually from the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution. While it certainly reflects the aspirations of the founders, and may well represent my or your best hopes, it's not actually the law of the land. The constitution is clearer about its jurisdiction.

      Speaking as one born and raised native US, it is my sincerest hope that any member of any branch of the US government who took such a petty legalistic approach to the spirit under which the law of the land was written should be tarred, feathered, and hanged. I'd throw in drawn and quartered just to get the point across but that little amusement was one we didn't carry over from the Mother Country.

      Actually, there are already a number of candidates, as far as I'm concerned. The president from whom our current leader seems to draw his inspiration has already effectively made it so that the minute you leave US soil, you lose many of the rights and guarantees of a US citizen. Something that apparently the Roman Empire never did. For them if you were a Roman citizen, you were a Roman citizen, no matter where you were or what Roman tributary you were born in.

      We used to set the world standard for rectitude and morality. Now we're daily doing things I was told were only done in the Evil Empire of the Freedom-hating Satanistic Atheistic Commie Russkies or the oppressive dictatorship of the Third Reich. Except that you usually were allowed to keep your shoes on when you travelled over there.

    12. Re:US Citizens Only by Nutria · · Score: 1

      it does have an obligation to respect universal rights, regardless of citizenship.

      There are no universal rights; there are only those which have been bought with blood in violent struggle.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    13. Re:US Citizens Only by techsimian · · Score: 1

      So you think only US citizens should be protected by the Constitution? I'm glad the Constitution disagrees.

    14. Re:US Citizens Only by Nutria · · Score: 1

      So you think only US citizens should be protected by the Constitution?

      There are no black and whites.

      Everyone in this country should have speedy trial by jury.

      Innocent until proven guilty.

      OTOH, people here on Green Cards and student visa should be snooped on more extensively than citizens. (As should members of US security services, but for different reasons.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  20. Um, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leaving the argument aside for the moment of whether what the NSA is doing is legal, if they are collection all foreign communication, what else should they do when they don't know where it comes from ? Aside from that, using Tor and encryption properly may get your data collected, but the NSA still won't be able to read it. Far better than trusting them not to look at your unencrypted domestic conversations.

    1. Re:Um, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far better than trusting them not to look at your unencrypted domestic conversations.

      You think that foreign spy agencies aren't recording everything that goes on in the US, as they do to everyone else? You think they don't trade that information? "Quid quo pro." as another Slashdotter said...

  21. Fine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Back in the late-80's/early-90's, there was suspicion that the gov't was watching all Usenet traffic for suspicious keywords. So, people would purposely include things like: "Food for the FBI scanners: bomb weapons nuclear". The aim was to overwhelm the scanners with false-positives.

    So, they're going to pay extra attention to TOR traffic? Okay... excuse my while I configure my mom's PC to use it. The sooner we overwhelm them with the backlog for their cracking efforts, the better. In fact, here's my vote for Google to convert their web-crawler to use TOR... that ought to give them some content to chew on.

    1. Re:Fine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't work they just request more funding and they'll get it too. The real kicker is you have to pay for it.

    2. Re:Fine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That no longer works.

      The filters and the related tools that are used for profiling are much more sophisticated than they where in the 80's and 90's. We are way passed a white box running snort.

      The reason metadata is interesting is because that's all that is needed to create a contact map of everyone you have direct contact with. Sort of like a facebook friends list but including contacts by emails, phone calls, IM messages. Combine that with newsgroup postings and sites and you get a picture of the complete communication scope for every individual.

      When a suspicious subject is identified, you bring up their map out to two or 3 nodes deep. Then the work begins with evaluating the weights between the various nodes. Length of time for each connection, frequency of connection, associated connections via triangulations. Somewhere along the line a warrant gets issued and signed by a secret court. The goal being to identify identify the terror cell and everyone who participates in it.

      Interestingly, it is said that if a "who have you met" map existed, which could very well be the goal of the map generated by metadata, the one they are working with, it would take at most 7 hopes along the map to identify a relationship between any two people on earth.

      The mathematics behind it all is great and as an academic exercise its an awesome tool to use. The part I have a problem with is the agenda that makes use of the tool and the apparent disregard for privacy and law for the sake of its special interest. Obviously if you are required by law to cut the US population out of that map, it's effectiveness would be diminished. It seems the solution is just to ignore the law and shroud the activities in a blanket of secrecy justified as "national security" so that prying eyes needs to be the eyes of a senator or someone with much more to lose should they not cooperate.

      TOR is only security by obscurity. Plant an updated version of the lisp based spyware used against the Iranians or whomever on every computer and then it doesn't matter any more. TOR then serves its purpose as a smokescreen to give a false sense of security. Don't waste your time with that.

      Kid6i pr0n idiots beware. The decisive factor in whether you get turned in depends on how much turning you in will reveal about the tidbits they want secret.

    3. Re:Fine! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Emacs had a command to dump out words and phrases to attract the NSA or whoever. Of course, Emacs had everything except a decent editor....

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  22. Completely Off the Rail at Section 5.2 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

    yeah, the encrypted data bit is interesting (who doesn't use opportunistic TLS on SMTP these days?) but here's the bigger problem:

    Section 5 -- Domestic Communications (U)

    A communication identified as a domestic communication will be destroyed upon.
    recognition unless the Director (or Acting Director) of NSA specifically determines, in writing, that: (S) ...

    (2) the communication does not contain foreign intelligence information but is
    reasonably believed to contain evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed such communication may be disseminated (including United States person identities) to appropriate Federal law enforcement authorities, in accordance with 50 U.S.C. l806(b) and l825(c), Executive Order No. 12333, and, where applicable, the crimes reporting procedures set out in the August 1995 "Memorandum of Understanding: Reporting of Information Concerning Federal Crimes," or any successor document. Such communications may be retained by NSA for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed six months unless extended in writing by the Attorney General, to permit law enforcement agencies to determine whether access to original recordings of such is required for law enforcement purposes; (8)

    That's it, no questions left, the NSA is involved in domestic surveillance of US Citizens for law enforcement purposes. It's as if the Church Committee never existed.

    Considering the ease of writing those two required letters and the current state of law breaking in the United States, it's easy to see how bureaucrats could take the guidelines as written and 'reasonably determine' that all domestic communications need to be stored in perpetuity.

    Assuming anything else is to assume a level of generosity and restraint on the part of the intelligence agencies that each day we find ourselves more foolish to do.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Completely Off the Rail at Section 5.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humm ... so if they reasonable believe I'm committing a federal crime, such as violating the ToS of a website .... say, using foul language on G+ ... then that's all the excuse they need?

      P.S. --- I'm Canadian, so by reading this post you American's are exposing yourself to an extra level of potentially irreversible scrutiny ... Good Luck with that.

    2. Re:Completely Off the Rail at Section 5.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the word "reasonable" or derivative thereof is used, it implies a level of digression on behalf of the individual entrusted to perform tasks.

      When such a word appears in secret law (another issue we can talk about is the presumption that the law is known by all) that are require classified access to read, it's not unreasonable to understand that the times are completely unreasonable. The only certainty is an inevitable declension of that is previously understood to be reasonable into something that is only limited by the amount of resources, time and effort to make the subject matter uninteresting.

      Considering that the US has been selling 50B in US bonds to it's own Central bank month over month and has set it's eyes on a prize of eliminating "terrorism", we can only presume that there is no limit making any subject matter uninteresting if not at least for statistical studies or whatever other study can be drawn up to justify the contractor filling out the next CP-308 form.

      There is absolutely no real way to know what is "reasonable"; that would depends on there being "reasonable" people running the show. So domestic surveillance is here to stay.

    3. Re:Completely Off the Rail at Section 5.2 by PPH · · Score: 1

      (2) the communication does not contain foreign intelligence information but is reasonably believed to contain evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed such communication may be disseminated (including United States person identities) to appropriate Federal law enforcement authorities, in accordance with 50 U.S.C.

      So are you bastards going to report in when our local refineries make their weekly calls to fix the price of gasoline?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Completely Off the Rail at Section 5.2 by TwineLogic · · Score: 1

      I came here to point this out and I am glad to see you have already done so. Yes, this paragraph makes it clear.

      The NSA spies on anonymized communications. When it detects illegal activity, it investigates that as terrorism. When it determines that one of the parties was a U.S. Citizen in the U.S., it hands the investigation over to the FBI.

      This provides zero surprise to those of us who have been following cryptome since before the Continuity of Government. Did you know that Kissinger has a position in the CoG?

    5. Re:Completely Off the Rail at Section 5.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever consider these "NSA revelations" are just a decoy fire to focus the eyeballs away from the real fire in the finance world ? Just like the little Kim's rantings ?

  23. "unless such person can be positively identified" by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

    So, guilty until proven innocent?

  24. How does this get fixed? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how with the current form of government that's been perverted and the people in power.

    Will it take 20M people marching on DC or a coup or ???.

    1. Re:How does this get fixed? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      I think your underestimating how popular it is to have the NSA looking at encrypted communication. Most Americans are just fine with the NSA spying on foriegners.

    2. Re:How does this get fixed? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Have you forgotten that "spying on foreigners" is what countries *do*, and have done since civilizations got big enough to bump into one another?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:How does this get fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a good question.

      It will require some event or occurrence that causes the current focus of government to be lost. An asteroid perhaps.

    4. Re:How does this get fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't and by its very nature can't be fixed. Revolution might fix it, but could also end up with something way worse then what we have now. Ask Germany how it worked out for them.

    5. Re:How does this get fixed? by plover · · Score: 1

      One thing's for sure: you won't be able to organize a 20 million person march anonymously.

      --
      John
    6. Re:How does this get fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People could start voting for real. Every march in the last few decades, has been completely abandoned by election day. Look at all the publicity that OWS and TP got, and yet in the end we still have Congress full of Republicrats. If none of either of those groups were serious on election day, why would anyone believe anti-NSA-spying protesters?

      Put forth candidates. Vote for them. Shit, let's set the bar pretty low at first: we don't need to win, just get, say, 5% of the vote on an anti-government-abuse platform, limiting the pro-government-abuse vote to 95%. Can we do that? If not, then I don't see much point in a march.

      People in government know that marching is the public's way of showing near-apathy. Protesting is a way of asking nicely, voicing a minor preference rather than a demand.

      And if people can't even be bothered to vote, the idea of a coup is even more absurd. A coup requires way more getting-off-one's-ass than voting does. If nobody cares enough to vote, what makes you think they care enough to support or execute a coup? That's just not a serious suggestion, I think.

      Seriously, you have to go back to your parents or grandparents to see anyone ever really giving a shit, and in some ways even these old examples are slightly anemic. People haven't voted "enough of this abusive bullshit" in a presidential race since 1976, and even then they settled for a Democratic president that they didn't really want to support. And people haven't marched and scared Congress into action, since what, 1963?

  25. Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to just hide in plain site, then.

    1. Re:Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So no HTML5 or CSS?

  26. Greetings NSA Overlords by HalcyonBlue · · Score: 4, Funny

    -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- wYwDnjZmSa5jm10BA/9tq+tFZW7ZTwWorCU2PJ5RWkhiefDCt0GCxVlg1MPa zkj6bUvN99JdyZZtbsQ3xxz7ugvNPL3cydtnX6Hwn9I/BGqZDYB7ki6UBaY1 uT1T5ZQd28WhLd5Bs4JRr5kc9WCuQf5KdZa9WCO/9UItlsmCakYglJxmVSNy 0XHuJrl3k9JiAR8cYQurOOe3LWKMf8Ytewx4iZquuh0wLwrUs14Zy8G+dkcP C66rRlOIw8S0TqeLd8CoHcEaYPu9osnR5+V3Nz31AoOTgYV5FbkRsV6c6HIs 7byyAyg87jk9Hfu9Zbajfec= =MgO6 -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

    1. Re:Greetings NSA Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should've posted that as "Anonymous" - now they have your username, the secret warrant will be issued, and the men in black will be showing up at your door to 'disappear' you somewhere for interrogation. If you don't hand over the encryption key for that message, you must be a terrorist... the weather in Guantanimo is nice this time of year.

  27. Hello, from the USA by corando · · Score: 1

    "will not be treated as a United States person, unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person's communications give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person," the secret document stated.'"

    Which is why I start all my conversations with an un-encrypted "Hello fellow US citizen! Nice weather here in the US, where we both live and currently are, today huh?" ;-)

  28. Time for this community to step up. by conspirator23 · · Score: 2

    Many moons ago, people used to stuff all kinds of ridiculous claptrap in their Usenet .sig lines to "clog the NSA monitors." Keywords like nuclear, communist, peace, soviet, blah blah blah blah. It was a fairly useless exercise whether the underlying suspicions were true or not.

    The execution was amteurish, but today's news proves that the principle is worth exlporing further. Software developers need to stop talking the talk and make a more concerted effort to transparently encrypt all the network communication conducted by their applications, their mail systems, their social media platforms, whatever. The cypherpunk community has long pooh-poohed allowing "weak" encryption to become entrenched and create a false sense of security. But this "secutrity through purity" approach has resulted in the abject failure of the widespread adoption of encryption at all levels. Can we not find some sort of barely acceptable common standard and just start routinely implementing it and make the marketing people figure out how to describe it as a sexy feature?

    1. Re:Time for this community to step up. by cpghost · · Score: 1

      The execution was amteurish, but today's news proves that the principle is worth exlporing further.

      We could force the NSA to monitor covert channels in spam (whether they do exist or not), so they may have to dedicate even more resources on hardware and electricity. The more they scan spams, looking for a message that may or may not be there, the less resources they have left to spy on ordinary citizens.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:Time for this community to step up. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      The execution was amteurish, but today's news proves that the principle is worth exlporing further.

      We could force the NSA to monitor covert channels in spam (whether they do exist or not), so they may have to dedicate even more resources on hardware and electricity. The more they scan spams, looking for a message that may or may not be there, the less resources they have left to spy on ordinary citizens.

      You know, if the NSA fucktards lifted a finger to remove or kill Spammer machines (or spammers themselves) all this shit would go away over night.

      NSA: "We killed spam forever."

      Populace: "How?"

      Nerds: "Who the fuck cares how! Let's go back to farting around with bash scripts!"

    3. Re:Time for this community to step up. by plover · · Score: 1

      The cypherpunk community has long pooh-poohed allowing "weak" encryption to become entrenched and create a false sense of security. But this "secutrity through purity" approach has resulted in the abject failure of the widespread adoption of encryption at all levels.

      Hardly. The inability of the community was due to a legal morass of import and export laws, patents, prohibitions, and fears. Pioneers like Zimmerman were harassed at customs, and investigated by the FBI. Efforts to standardize encryption were thwarted by things like CALEA, and hardware like the Clipper chip. Even RSA included key escrow in their PGP offerings.

      Can we not find some sort of barely acceptable common standard and just start routinely implementing it and make the marketing people figure out how to describe it as a sexy feature?

      What, pray tell, is a barely acceptable common standard? All we know about the NSA's capabilities are gross capacity requirements, like "the Utah data center will require 65MW and 1,000,000 gallons of water a day." That doesn't tell me if they can routinely break RSA, DH, or SSL. It doesn't tell me if they know a cryptanalytic attack on AES or 3DES. It doesn't tell me if they have 4096-bit quantum computers that can open anything instantly.

      It also doesn't solve any of the still-unsolved hard problems of authentication. How do I know your real identity is conspirator23? How do I know this is your key? How do I know we're not being played by an Agency-in-the-middle?

      Having weak security puts us in the position we were in last month: we were being monitored but were unaware of it. In many ways weak security is worse. At least today we have no illusion of security.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Time for this community to step up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JAM ECHELON DAY NEVER DIED!!!!

      These are words I have to type to make my all caps show up.

    5. Re:Time for this community to step up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cypherpunk community has long pooh-poohed allowing "weak" encryption to become entrenched and create a false sense of security. But this "secutrity through purity" approach has resulted in the abject failure of the widespread adoption of encryption at all levels. Can we not find some sort of barely acceptable common standard and just start routinely implementing it and make the marketing people figure out how to describe it as a sexy feature?

      "Marketing people" implies that the entity providing this 'barely acceptable encryption' is a company. As such, how are they different from Google, Microsoft et al where laws are in place whereby all the government has to do is ask, to get a back-door?

      As soon as it's not a commercial operation that means paying for servers, support, polish and anything else goes out the window. What you're left with is a community effort. The result is something like the Tor Browser bundle, which is as convenient as it's ever going to get.

  29. "Inadvertent" by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NSA agents are not allowed to eat cookies. However, they may take items from the cookie jar and place them in their mouths to determine whether they are cookies. Any cookies which are inadvertently swallowed may be retained.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    1. Re:"Inadvertent" by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're good at Govspeak.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    2. Re:"Inadvertent" by Hillgiant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You will notice, of course, that the procedure does not contain a provision for removing items from the mouth other than by swallowing.

      --
      -
    3. Re:"Inadvertent" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition, the NSA promises not to put any oatmeal raisin cookies in their mouths, unless it's dark and they think it's chocolate chip.

  30. Same as Storing All Private Mail by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    Extended to the physical mails it is analogous to deeming all sealed letters and other private mail to be suspicious and in need of permanent archiving, and so create Postal Bots that open each letter, photocopies its contents, the reseals it it until the Government decides it wants to devote the resources to looking it up and reading it.

    In the email case the saving is easier, and the reading is harder than with physical mail but they both accomplish the same task (treating private mail as government property) with manageable levels of effort.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  31. Re:"unless such person can be positively identifie by intermodal · · Score: 1

    That's how it works these days. I've been uncomfortable with it ever since I was on a bus in early 2001 (pre-9/11) in the Phoenix area and the Border Patrol or INS or whatever it was came through the bus asking if each of us was born in the United States. I briefly contemplated requesting a warrant and exercising my right to remain silent, but decided it would end badly.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  32. Blind Jimmy by aoism · · Score: 1

    Blind Jimmy Jackson, NSA Agent for 10 years, can't positively identify you as a US Citizen because he can't see the monitor. That gives us the right to retain your data. PS. Do you know any blind people? We're looking to fill many positions here at the NSA!

  33. Re:"unless such person can be positively identifie by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Collected until demonstrated boring.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  34. Re: "unless such person can be positively identifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foreign until determined American.

  35. THIS is the question to ask next in a hearing by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Such communications may be retained by NSA for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed six months unless extended in writing by the Attorney General, to permit law enforcement agencies to determine whether access to original recordings of such is required for law enforcement purposes.

    "A simple question, Mr. Holder: how many of these extensions have you and your miserable predecessors rubber stamped? I'm putting the final touches on your Contempt of Congress while you ponder about lying. Again."

  36. Shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next post:

    "Walk around wearing a ski mask on a hot summer day in the city, get scrutinized by the police!"

    Does this honestly surprise anybody? When you do something unusual, you will attract notice. When the something 'unusual' happens to be something that is done by many criminals (even if there's a harmless explanation for your particular usage), you will draw scrutiny.

    Shout profiling, security theater, and '4th amendment' all you want - but if you engage in 'unusual' activities, you're gonna draw the attention of people looking for 'unusual' situations.

  37. Too much focus on Tor by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    what about encrypted chat?

    And in the event that an intercepted communication is later deemed to be from a US person, the requirement to promptly destroy the material may be suspended in a variety of circumstances. Among the exceptions are "communications that are enciphered or reasonably believed to contain secret meaning, and sufficient duration may consist of any period of time during which encrypted material is subject to, or of use in, cryptanalysis."

    1. Re:Too much focus on Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pidgin OTR is packaged in Tor bundle. It generates keys dynamically, exchanges them using Diffie-Helmann and they are destroyed after the session (you need to set up initial asymmetric key pairs though and this step could be vulnerable if done over the network). So the content is unretrievable unless they hack endpoints. They can however cross-correlate (trace timing and volume of transferred content), so it is better to use "delayed" information such as mail (I would however augment the talking protocol to transmit data in random pattern to avoid this problem). Anyway, they have little use of captured chat if using the described package, unless they try real-time MITM with initial keys.

    2. Re:Too much focus on Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. There is too much focus on software based solutions.
      The problem is that the government is spying, not the lack of software combating the government.
      Fighting the government with software is pointless - they can change the rules of the game (and make your software illegal overnight).
      If you let the idea that the government can spy on everyone else and you don't care because your communication is encrypted, then you're tacitly accepting that the government has a right to snoop. You see it even now - "The program has been going on a long time now (so therefore it's ok)".

      Heck, I suspect this whole immigration bill fiasco to be an attempt to divert attention from this issue (under the premise that the people can't complain about 2 things at once).

      Get out there and march on Washington or something if you value your rights before it's too late.

    3. Re:Too much focus on Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are actually looking for a few good Valhallan people to fight off the snakes.

    4. Re:Too much focus on Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't produce crypto keys, this could mean two years of jail in the British Reich. That's why I won't ever visit this shitplace again.

  38. Turn about. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do it anyway, so expand your own security and encrypt EVERYTHING.

  39. OR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if we want to cause you unemployment ( preferred ) we all take a break from the net for 4 months and cause your economy to tank totally

    NICER!

  40. Or post these words - everywhere... by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    Simply take all the words on this list: http://rense.com/general66/scgh.htm ...and insert them into each and every email message you send. I send them coded as white-on-white in html formatted messages so they aren't readily visible.

    1. Re:Or post these words - everywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use all the words, the filter rules will drop your content.
      We need to be smart and use a few words, like body armor, intersperced throughout our content - 3 to 10.

      Still, a good idea.

      Also, anyone smart will not use HTML in their messages. It is a security risk. My email server only allows 7-bit ASCII messages. This helps the mixmaster. Everything else is dropped. Last time I read the SMTP RFC, plain text was still a required portion of the SMTP content, though other mime-types can be included like HTML, binary data, whatever. A message without plain-text is not valid. I have gotten a few 100% empty messages over the years - seems some email servers (usually misconfigured Exchange servers) will send email without the plain-text portion. This is really important for redheads.

      That is why we have RFCs, so that everyone can follow the standards.

      See how I used the words?

  41. WHat is readign and writing first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first get your self some ability to read and write ...now go back and try again ...
    what is human left or right.....anyhow?

    1. Re:WHat is readign and writing first by bdwebb · · Score: 2

      WHat is readign and writing first

      WHat (I'm not sure what a W Hat is.) is readign and writing (You misspelled reading. Also, this should be 'are reading and writing'.) [first] (Unnecessary word...makes no sense in the context of the sentence. Also missing punctuation.)

      first get your self some ability to read and write ...now go back and try again ...

      first (needs capitalization) get your self (this is one word, yourself, unless you are talking about his Ego - learn about reflexive pronouns) some ability to read and write ...now go back and try again ... (overusage of the ellipsis - use actual punctuation)

      what is human left or right.....anyhow?

      what (You don't like capitalization, do you?) is human left or right (WHOOSH...human right as in "unalienable rights") ..... (Super ellipsis - why?) anyhow? (Okay...you're fucking with me right? You implied a pause in your sentence with your very long ellipsis and then you make a statement but follow it with a question mark similar to the Anchorman faux pas "I'm Ron Burgundy?")

      I hope you're joking.

    2. Re:WHat is readign and writing first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please kill yourself. The world will be a little bit brighter without you in it.

      Just sayin...

  42. ohhhh canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my law states that what i do anywhere on the net Canadian law prevails...IT catches kiddy pron and it protects my privacy with the privacy act.
    THUS i should and could then say that i have the legal right to sue the US govt in abesentia and ask the WTO for a judgement.

    this i will make that all of canada be allowed legally to download up to the judgement amount of all your precious movies and tv shows and cause you keep doing it that this be continued until such time as you stop spying on us. and can prove such.

  43. Re: Apple's encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently read that many Apple communications are encrypted: "Conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data." . So, are all of us who use these Apple communications tools behaving in a way that gives NSA grounds for retaining our IMs? OMG NSA, CU @ the mall real soon. K?

  44. completely illogical by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Okay I get the logic of leave all your stuff unencrypted and on the open web so the NSA can spy on you otherwise if you use encrypted networks like TOR, the NSA will try even more to spy on you. That's their logic.
    Buuuut...
    What is the use of capturing undecryptable TOR traffic? It's just gibberish garbage data to them. And then if they just mean they capture and analyze all of your unencrypted data just because you're using TOR, then obviously anything you don't care about is included in that traffic and anything top secret and sensitive goes on in that TOR connection you're obviously using, making it completely pointless to have your open internet traffic analyzed. So it's actually all around pointless.

    1. Re:completely illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there are claims floating around that NSA can break the typical hybrid crypto combo of RSA* and "standard" symmetric crypto such as 3DES, AES, RC4 and the like. Not by means of massive computer power, but because their maths people had a breakthrough. I think The Economist does this sort of rumors, so there is *some* credibility. TE is of course on the side of the bankster establishment, so take that with a massive amount of salt.

      The other claim is that they "archive all cryptograms until we can decrypt". So maybe they hope to have a "breakthrough" in the future.

      Anyhow, we should all use TOR as a matter of general practice. That would also make it 100% clear whether they can actually break it. If that's the case, invent 500 more Feistel ciphers per year and use them in TOR.

      *Or any other asymmetric crypto method for exchanging symmetric session keys

    2. Re:completely illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay I get the logic of leave all your stuff unencrypted and on the open web so the NSA can spy on you otherwise if you use encrypted networks like TOR, the NSA will try even more to spy on you. That's their logic.

      They said nothing even remotely like that. So either you're a liar, or you're a moron with no reading comprehension. Which is it? Those are your only possible choices, and any other response (including nothing) is an irretractable confession that you're both. We all know you'll choose "both".

    3. Re:completely illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Both" it is, then.

      You have shrieked at the top of your lungs that you are both an idiot and a lying piece of shit.

      You can never take that confession back or prove it wrong in any way. You can only continue to repeat it. You're doing it right now.

  45. Re:be reasonable douche-bag by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    Eric Holder, is that you?

  46. wait a minute... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    How can they identify TOR traffic? There were whole slashdot articles about how impossible it is to detect TOR traffic. SSL is SSL. An encrypted VPN connection aka all of them looks exactly like Tor traffic because they both have the same structure.

    1. Re:wait a minute... by Kardos · · Score: 1

      Well you could start by filtering for traffic flowing through tor nodes....

    2. Re:wait a minute... by allo · · Score: 1

      so how do you detect a tor node?

      yes there are lists ... but only of exits.

  47. What do you expect? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    If you keep the curtains in your windows closed you are obviously doing something criminally wrong and should be prosocuted to the fullest extent of the law!

  48. Re: Apple's encryption by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    I recently read that many Apple communications are encrypted: "Conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data." . So, are all of us who use these Apple communications tools behaving in a way that gives NSA grounds for retaining our IMs? OMG NSA, CU @ the mall real soon. K?

    Or, more likely, Apple built a back door for the feds, or is simply mistaken, or more likely, lying about it.

  49. Why not use NSAMail directly? by cpghost · · Score: 1

    NSAMail, the new e-mail service provided by the NSA, is totally secure and protects your privacy too! Remember, unlike with GMail, every message hosted on the NSAMail servers is automatically classified top secret. In fact, it would be so secret that no-one, not even the intended recipient, will be able to read it. Think about it, next time you select a new E-Mail provider: your communications are absolutely SECURE and totally protected with NSAMail. NEW!: Now also available to non US-Persons: you're more than welcome to use our FREE NSAMail service. If you need assistance, a human analyst^Woperator will help you out quickly: they know more about you than you do. Human operators are only available to non-US Persons or US Persons who use TOR.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Why not use NSAMail directly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they no longer call it "NSAMail". These days it's sold under the label "Gmail". As in "Government Mail".

  50. Connect the dots. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    Today, a former NSA leaker revealed that the NSA spied on judges (including a current SC Justice), politicians, military, etc. Among other names mentioned: Barack Obama in 2003/2004 (while running for US Senate).

    Barack Obama was unopposed in his 2004 senate bid (if you don't count "token" oponent Alan Keys). Why? Because Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records were leaked -- including accusations from his (ex-) wife (Star Trek Voyager actress Jeri Ryan) that he took her to swinger clubs, sex clubs, etc and asked her to participate in wife swapping, gang bangs, etc.

    Was the NSA involved? Barack Obama, Senator, was opposed to the Patriot Act, gitmo, etc. As recently as Inauguration day 2009, he stated that we didn't need to make a "false choice" between security and liberty.

    Something changed his mind. What does the NSA know about Barack Obama?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:Connect the dots. by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      Nothing changed his mind. Politicians lie to get elected. Been that way since the dawn of time.

  51. As A Canadian Sys-Admin by canadiannomad · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian sys-admin who works on a lot of US servers, I've known we've all been screwed for a long time. This came as no surprise.
    My question is (not really, I'm pretty sure of the answer), does this mean that any server(DBs included) touched by an outsourced worker is open for scrutiny and monitoring? If one party is American, and the other is a server that was "handled" by an outsourced worker, is this protected, or is it open for monitoring and recording?
    Most Canadians and other foreign nationals ought to understand what this means to them, if they didn't already.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  52. I now have a weekend project ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Write a program that:
    1) Downloads free creative commons licensed videos from youtube (like these: https://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley/videos )
    2) Encrypts them.
    3) Uploads/downloads them repeatedly to/from my own server, via Tor (so as to relay/exit through non-US Tor nodes).
    4) Laugh as I fill up the NSA's new datacenter with encrypted videos of things like an MIT professor teaching thermodyamics.

    This might be a good exercise in Go. Been wanted to get a little more experience with it ...

  53. Doesn't Tor handle this? by mitch_feaster · · Score: 1

    I thought the whole premise of Tor was that you can't tell from that outside that someone is actually using it (much less "collect" the data you transmit over Tor)?

    --
    fun
    1. Re:Doesn't Tor handle this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can certainly see it is an encrypted stream. They apparently gobble up all encrypted data, as they have "legalized" it for themselves ("you might be communicating with your russian GF, that would be a non-US-person, so we gobble that up, just in case").

      LET's ALL USE TOR ! It is already fast enough to view videos with a slight delay (3 minutes or so) to get the video buffer sufficiently filled.

    2. Re:Doesn't Tor handle this? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You can tell somebody is using Tor just by looking at port numbers. You cannot tell what they are doing, and unless you either have complete data on the exit node they are using or the hidden service they are using, you cannot tell where they are connecting to. You may be able to tell (to a degree) what they are doing from packet-patterns and packet-sizes. For example, downloads will have MTU-sized packets going to the person using Tor. Still, even if you have the exit-node traffic or the hidden-service node traffic, correlating it is a highly uncertain thing. (I have some scientific experience in that area...)

      Good thing then, that due process has been suspended for "terrorist" (read: anybody they do not explicitly like) and a mere suspicion is quite enough to step up surveillance.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  54. Hmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what your really saying is that I need to start emailing friends & associates encrypted ascii porn files through a tor connection so the only people who will be able to see it will be myself and the NSA

  55. It moves me to verse by jfengel · · Score: 3, Funny

    A torrentor who Tor'd some torrent
    Tried to tutor two torrentors to Tor
    Said the two to the tutor
    Is it harder to Tor
    Than to torrent two torrents over Tor?

    1. Re:It moves me to verse by m1ndcrash · · Score: 1

      mind.blown.

  56. Raise the NOISE FLOOR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's something we can do to protest that they can't arrest us for. Raise the Noise Floor. On every phone call slip out a word you think the NSA will
    flag. I also google "how the make a small EMP device". Or.. google "how to make thermite".. it's not a crime to know it.
    aluminum powder, iron oxide, and your favorite sparkler in the center to get it going.

    Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

    If you ask me our current president has taken away our liberties. This goes against the Constitution. I've got an electronic copy of it.
    It's time we do something about this. Make some noise. Be heard.

  57. My first Tor Hidden Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I installed Tor for the first time yesterday. I then pasted 2 lines of configuration into the config file to create a hidden service, and wrote a trivial web server (in Go). This took about 10 minutes and just worked, which I found rather surprising. So very easy!

    While Tor in general is about hiding endpoints, Hidden services also provide end to end encryption, and allow you to host services from behind NAT and firewalls, even without a static IP, and on ports that your ISP or firewall block. This is also all free (No need for a domain name or DNS). If you simply want to run some server for your own use, Tor hidden services are quite handy! The whole anonymization and screwing with the NSA spying is just a bonus.

    If you find it bothersome that such Hidden Services require Tor to access, there is a nice web proxy at tor2web.org that lets you access http based hidden services from a client without Tor.

  58. Re: Apple's encryption by beefoot · · Score: 1

    The stuff you read is likely a "leak" from NSA encouraging people to use iMessage or iFacewhatevertime thinking that their messages are encrypted and safe from the government. In fact, NSA likely has a direct server making it REALLY easy to obtain data sent using these methods, ahem.

  59. Abstract langauge is only as useful as... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... agreed upon meaning by those using it.

    For example what I just wrote could have a definition of blowing up the moon.
    The proof of this fact of abstract languiage is political double and tripple speak.

    So what this really all amounts to is spys are trying to justify their pay check, like law makers try to justify their job but creating new laws regardless of the validity or constitutionality of them.

    And to think, we tax payers really need the paper work telling government how to spend our taxes, rather than giving the politicians who have proven to0 be liars a blank check.

  60. Breathe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and get targeted by the NSA.

    its really not that hard people..

  61. It doesn't even matter what they know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Kennedy, every U.S. president knows what will happen if they cross the line and aggravate their masters.

  62. Who Didn't See This Coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main reason (besides not wanting the bother) that I never went with TOR and all this encrypted "hiding in plain sight" is that I was almost certain that would get you scrutiny. Now we see that it does.

    You've got to figure that if you make it hard for them to figure out what you're up to, they're going to try harder to find out. Otherwise you're an amateur, and amateurs go to jail.

    Fight back, but be SMART about it.

    1. Re:Who Didn't See This Coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jawolll, Volksgenosse ! Never let the tyranny know you oppose it. Just follow all orders, including that to march towards Stalingrad. If you are lucky, you will survive. Those who oppose will all be dead. Let's all cower down.

  63. Slashdot Itself Sabotages TOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot itself plays the NSA's bitch by blacklisting TOR exit nodes all the time. That's because deep down, they support the NY criminals who run the show from Tokio to Budapest.

    Now, ban this IP address and suck a dick of Lockheed Martin and/or AIPAC.

  64. More Reasons to use TOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/spionageskandal-britischer-geheimdienst-sammelt-gewaltige-datenmengen-a-907260.html

    And, I use TOR to view movies on a regular basis. Just have some patience to let the buffer fill up.

    Example: kinox.to (stuffed full of pro-Empire propaganda, but hey, we need bread, games and a LEASH).

  65. Big surprise by jimicus · · Score: 1

    This really shouldn't come as a surprise.

    Look at it this way: if you commit to using Tor, in essence the NSA has a choice.

      1. Shrug their collective shoulders, say, "Oh well. No point in bothering with anyone using Tor." and move on to easier targets.
      2. Say to themselves "Right, Mr. Clever Who Thinks He Can Hide So Easily. We'll see about that..." and redouble their efforts.

    When the organisation in question is a government spy agency with a budget that might as well be unlimited for all practical purposes and a battalion of very clever people who are employed wholly and exclusively to figure out new and inventive ways to spy on people - what did you think they were going to do?

    1. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. You are a property of a NY bankster. Your owners need to know what you think. Your owners will retain all your cryptograms forever, just in case you will later try to "row up the river to the people who don't respect slave-owner's property rights".

  66. And, 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think about who benefited from that, it was the Arms Makers, Mercenaries, Booze-Allen-Hamilton,L3 and the like. Plus, it was Israel, who got an innocent (relative to 9/11) bystander (Saddam Hussein) taken out. This thing was a win/win for the MIC and Israel.

    Now, they want to do something like this again: Fancy up the need for war against Iran which will take out another Israel nuisance while making at least 500 billions in revenue for the Makers Of Death And Misery.

    @UK-USA Security Services: It is up to you to be part and parcel of this next crime they contemplate, or to work against it, with all your resources. I am not suggesting treason, I am suggesting you shape your leader's thought processes in the right way, as opposed to facilitate their Next Crime. Remember, Corruption destroys empires and it will destroy your's and your civilization.

  67. so, is the NSA all over us satellite folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, Google, et.al get my physical location wrong all the time, because I may be beaming down to one of several possible locations in the USA. Seriously, Google, and Speedtest.net, among others, never get my location right.
    So, according to the article, we probably drive the feds crazy.

  68. Anonymous Secure Online Backups! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is how I do anonymous secure online backups, guaranteed to be retrievable forever thanks to FISA...
    Also, this helps my stock holdings in hard drives and storage companies - win, win!

    bjelr qzvjw arxsn bxors tncfm eyhcx
    qxssz isway gxytb pnekv bnghu kjtsn
    jkpkz almac mdwtj tjnll igayq tpqmj
    rqzlh nllib pphxk wloeq akvdo gnkgk
    apcso vvnvz jpbyu pkydt fjesc cfqqt
    omqki nkofr emqin eqkja sejcq onikj
    hkguw jdgve voxqo akjys kxhyy ddnho
    jvcjw jaemt pxbim hcvhy ukpyp lgbzm
    otxtz asaii wxyfd bmkxz hlpax bxaaq
    bytem eyiqm

  69. Re:"unless such person can be positively identifie by gweihir · · Score: 1

    So, guilty until proven innocent?

    No, just "guilty". It makes things easier. Due process is for non-important things only today. And identifying (a.k.a. making) terrorists is of course the highest priority. How can the population be kept in fear otherwise?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  70. No Need To "open" Letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just build a specialized, high-performance X-Ray machine and see the ink on the paper. Call it "communications tomography". Deploy it in those 27* central distribution centers and of course forward the "take" directly to Ft. Stasi, Maryland.

    You bet this is already done and somebody like "Raytheon Strategic Government Systems" have already raked in billions for that program. Plus a 850 million yearly "maintenance fee".

    * Pulled out of my ass, but the magnitude is correct.

  71. They Did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't receive SPAM on Government-Mail (shortened "Gmail"). So what's your complaint ?

  72. War is a failure of politics. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    At some point the popular uprising in Syria morphed to a civil war, then Israel dropped some bombs on it and it started to look like it was morphing into an old fashioned proxy war between East and West. If I'm not mistaken Obama has yet to send arms to anyone, but he recently signed a UN backed agreement with Putin to work together toward creating a "caretaker" government formed by the waring parties themselves. However before any of that can happen they need to negotiate a cease fire on the ground which is much easier said than done. Secondary goals are distributing aid, and sending in UN inspectors to investigate the reported use of nerve gas. They have also agreed that the day to day public service should not be dismantled (which was what threw Iraq into an orgy of looting on the 3rd day of the war).

    If stopping the bloodshed and restoring order is your aim then you should be applauding an agreement that aims to stop the violence and reboot the politics, while at the same time asking WTF did it take them 2yrs to publicly agree (through gritted teeth)?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  73. Cold Fjord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cold Fjord.

    I'm pretty sure that tool is still sucking authoritarian dick.

  74. Not at the moment, i guess by allo · · Score: 1

    now there is a crypto-boom. NSA will just wait some time, until it fades again, before they can assume that encryption = suspicious, again.

    By the way, is there an error in the article? Shouldn't it be that they need to stop collecting data, when the target is from OUTSIDE the US? NSA is a american secret service after all.

  75. Good for world peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to obsolete constitutional constraints, it is least problematic if the U.S. outsources all of its domestic spying to China and vice versa. It would make it possible for China to make significant progress regarding human rights violations: after all, all the snooping would be done by the U.S.

    It's not like there is no precedence: the U.S. already outsources a good deal of "due process" and "human rights" violations to Guantanamo, Cuba.

  76. oh, no doubt. by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised this it's a surprise. It seems reasonable to assume that if you're detected in any way using Tor someone is capturing every packet and saving it away somewhere until it can be easily decrypted using future technology (imagine how powerful computers will be in another 30 years) and they can see what you were up to.

  77. Simple answer fellow computer mavens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course this story is only coming out so they can try to scare you out of using encryption. Fuck them!!

    If they want to threaten to "hold it all until they crack it", well, let's give them tons of garbage to decipher that can never be deciphered because it has NO content at all. They simply can't tell the difference anyway so for every message you encrypt, send hundreds of others that are merely randomized content wrapped to look like encrypted message but just being onion layers wrapped around a core of random nothing. It's just a variant of the old school internet "NSA food" people put into .sigs taken to the next level of resource wastage!!!

    This is how you deal with puffed up threats like this.

  78. using this logic, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if i go to the drug store and buy the bogo rubbers, multiple women will seek me out?

  79. Green Card! Score!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I use TOR I get to be a United States Person. No more green card lottery for me. TOR here I come.

  80. Don't Use Tor, Get Targeted By the NSA anyway by stooo · · Score: 1

    Use Tor, Get Targeted By the NSA
    Don't Use Tor, Get Targeted By the NSA anyway

    Everyone of your communication is recorded by these bastards.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  81. Does that star spangled banner yet wave by bobvious · · Score: 1

    It's getting harder and harder to sing that last line in the Star Spangled Banner.

  82. So... by Meski · · Score: 1

    A non US citizen can 'immunise' themselves from NSA scrutiny by appearing to be a US citizen?

  83. how do you prove location and remain anonymous? by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    "will not be treated as a United States person, unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person's communications give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person,"

    The question is, how can you make it clear that you are a US citizen without giving away your identity?

    Are they saying that the evidence will be inadmissible in courts if it turns out to decrypt illegal activities from a US citizen? Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.

  84. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come, use Tor and join the fun then. If we all do we will all be labeled terrorists, which is so trendy these days.

    And lets get all cool EFF stickers for our laptops!

    https://supporters.eff.org/shop

  85. Is this a problem ? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    1 - It is natural for a government agency to watch where criminal activity may happen. And anonymized networks are more likely to contain criminal information.
    2 - They are only watching, they can't arrest you or issue search warrents for just using TOR.
    3 - If you don't expect to be watched, why are you using anonymizers ? The whole point of anonymizers is to preserve your anonymity even if you are watched. So if the NSA manages to identify you, blame yourself and whatever service you are using, not the NSA.

  86. This headline would be better by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    "Hide your location, lose protections guaranteed to those in America"

    Seriously, is this somehow unexpected? If they're monitoring stuff they believe is from people outside the USA, and you go out of your way to mask your location, why would it surprise you that if they don't know where someone is, they treat them with the lowest level of trust? Isn't that the default security policy for from every IT vendor since the beginning of time?

  87. Totally legal by Troy+from+Montana · · Score: 1

    Most radio communications can be encrypted or sent over a spread spectrum format if you want to keep a secret over radio, BUT this technology is only available to proper licensee's. All the encryption or frequency hopping codes are known to someone thus it can be monitored. So I am thinking the same should apply to the internet. The only way to be better in cyberspace is to have the best tech and this should not be available FOR FREE to just anyone. The jokers behind this knew full well what it was capable of and did this just to frustrate authorities and care nothing about anyone, their privacy or their rights. That is what disgusts me to see creeps like Assange and Snowden being emboldened by misled public supporters. Totally wrong. These guys do it for the thrill nothing more nothing less.