Slashdot Mirror
MIT Project Reveals What PRISM Knows About You
judgecorp writes "MIT's Immersion project sifts your Gmail, and constructs a map of your associations. Without opening a single message, it gives a clear view of who you connect with. It's a glimpse of some of what the NSA PRISM can do. From the article: 'You can assume that if the NSA is looking at your email, the information in Immersion is similar to what they will see. Consider that they probably see all of your email addresses (and not just Gmail) and that the metadata is examined along with the metadata from everyone you’ve corresponded with, and you can see just how much can be inferred from this data alone.'"
One has your consent, the other doesn't?
What now? Are they water-boarding people for information?
Have gnu, will travel.
One of them is opt-in. One of them is not.
The government, by definition, has the consent of the governed. Otherwise, it would be long gone.
The murderer an the rapist have the consent of the victim, otherwise these crimes simply would not happen.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This. In the West, I am less scared of the government (in its public capacity) than any other entity. They have the most openness and democratic oversight of any organisation. The thing I fear most about the government is the extent to which it partners with private organisations which are more interested in furthering special interests of small groups - usually the bank accounts of the wealthy.
The information GCHQ/NSA has on me CAN be used to exploit me - if insufficient regulation allows corruption to set in. The information private entities have about me WILL be used to exploit me - by design.
They have the consent of the governed only if they follow the constitution which gives them the power to do what they do.
Since they are wiping their rear ends with the constitution on this matter however, they do not have any consent at all.
The simulator helps you understand how your civil liberties are being violated. It helps make vague understandings more concrete.
How, when both of the only two parties the corporate media dare mention are both all for a surveillance state? Remember, a vote for a candidate who doesn't want your loved ones in jail for pot and doesn't want a police state (e.g., Green and Libertarian, both on enough ballots to win) is a wasted vote? All the newspapers and TV stations agree, we need to have a surveillance state and we need to jail your loved ones!
And nobody seems to realize how stupid their vote is, corporate media keep us in the dark.
Free Martian Whores!
In today's America, the government has less the consent, and more the apathy of the governed. The fact that the populace is so disengaged and ill-informed is the only reason there aren't many more protests in the streets.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Consent requires information. If the government does not provide any information what they are doing, there can be no consent. Additionally, any implied consent is bounded by the constitution, and it does not appear that the government of the US has any intent whatsoever to abide by those restrictions.
Interesting points about openness and democratic oversight in government as opposed to the corporate world.
So shouldn't you be up in arms about the lack of both openness and democratic oversight shown in the NSA affair? You can't defend the virtues of one system over another, then turn a blind eye when it reneges on those virtues.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
So... The government secretly developed, deployed, and has been illegally managing this mechanism enabling them to spy on every citizen and foreign national that has passed data or made phone calls through the US. And you recognize how it could easily be used to intimidate, coerce or blackmail.
Your solution then is to allow the program to continue and feel safe from it's potential abuse by asking the same people who illegally developed, deployed and are managing it, to follow the rules? Pretty please?
What could possibly go wrong?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
The problem is that now, thanks to the PRISM leaks, no one believes Google. Not even a little bit. And yes, they can be legally compelled to lie and if they are so compelled they will be shielded from any consequences of those lies, just like the phone companies were the first time a massive warrantless wiretapping program leaked 5 years ago.
Your premise is wrong if it's "government is an entity that follows laws", because this completely ignores the fact that government is made up of individuals, with personal agendas. The data they collect may not be used against you right now, but that's only because you're not in someone's way yet. Once you step into the crosshairs of someone in power, do you still think all that data is innocent and inert? Do you think regulation is going to save you? Are you willing to accept a society where you cannot poke your head up too high, unless you're of a chosen breed and have greased the right palms?
... whatever
the government has] the most openness and democratic oversight of any organisation
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! That was a good one!
perhaps it's not "rape rape" but "spousal rape."
I don't think it's apathy, I think it's surrender of the governed.
For example, Congress currently has an approval rating of 7%, and a disapproval rating of 65% (Rasmussen). If there's one thing Americans agree on, it's that our elected leadership is, on average, terrible. And yet early polling suggests that of 435 Congressmen, only about 50 are likely to be replaced.
The fastest-growing party affiliation in America is independent. That strongly suggests that neither major party is representing the citizens. And yet there are only 3 independents holding federal elected office, and 1 of those independents (Joe Lieberman) is really a Democrat in disguise because his party supported him over the candidate chosen by voters in Connecticut in the primary.
So this leads to the argument that Americans are paying attention, think their elected leaders and political parties are horrible, and vote for them anyways because they think the alternatives are even worse.
I am officially gone from