Slashdot Mirror


Training Materials for NSA Spying Tool "XKeyScore" Revealed

dryriver writes with news of the latest document release on NSA spying programs. Quoting The Guardian: "A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats, social media activities and the internet browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its 'widest-reaching' system for developing intelligence from the Internet. The latest revelations will add to the intense public and congressional debate around the extent of NSA surveillance programs. They come as senior intelligence officials testify to the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, releasing classified documents in response to the Guardian's earlier stories on bulk collection of phone records and Fisa surveillance court oversight. The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10. 'I, sitting at my desk,' said Snowden, could 'wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email.' U.S. officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: 'He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do.'" The slides in question. Looks like it was Mike Rogers that was lying and not Snowden. So much for the NSA's attempt at quieting public fear by releasing information on the Verizon phone data collection program before Congressional hearings today.

347 comments

  1. Quote from another dead hero by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They don't want the voice of reason spoken, folks, 'cause otherwise we'd be free. Otherwise we wouldn't believe their fucking horseshit lies, nor the fucking propaganda machine, the mainstream media, and buy their horseshit products that we don't fucking need, and become a third world consumer fucking plantation, which is what we're becoming. Fuck them! They're liars and murders. All governments are liars and murderers, and I am now Jesus. Now. And this is my compound."

    - Bill Hicks, Live at Laff Stop in Austin

    1. Re:Quote from another dead hero by NFN_NLN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Page 9 of the slides show the locations of the 150 servers. It appears they have servers in Russia and China. I wonder how those nations feel about this?

    2. Re:Quote from another dead hero by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just fine. Its so much easier to do their own snooping when they just have to tap the lines going into one location. Not to mention they can seize the servers at will.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:Quote from another dead hero by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sarcasm doesn't do well with the wall-of-text format. There's only so many words you can read in your mind's inner "sarcastic tone" before it just feels screechy.

    4. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if the people of the US are ever going to rise up, or if it just gets much worse before it gets better.

    5. Re:Quote from another dead hero by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 0

      lucky you kan reed, I spose :). Your right all up bad rushed post. Apologies...

    6. Re:Quote from another dead hero by fredrated · · Score: 0

      Whats this "gets better" that you speak of?

    7. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know? That's America's problem. Heroes. You've gotten so used to having heroes do this, do that, that when something bad happens, you stick your head in the sand and wait for a "hero" to take care of it.

      Solve your own damned problems instead of blaming others and just watching from the sidelines. It's your country, nobody elses, and unless you don't want that to change, you better act fast.

    8. Re:Quote from another dead hero by GigaBurglar · · Score: 1

      I love you man. His legend lives.

    9. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the people of the US are ever going to rise up, or if it just gets much worse before it gets better.

      IMO it will need to get much much worse before the US population rises up.

    10. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You didn't find the ring of servers around the Antarctic Ocean more interesting? Most of them were just in the middle of the ocean from what I could tell.

    11. Re:Quote from another dead hero by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They will rise up to vote for American idol. Just wait and see.

    12. Re:Quote from another dead hero by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I'm just leaving. Packing the bags, getting the fuck out. You hear that NSA? You'll get no problems from me! I'll even still be paying the taxes from overseas. It's all good! You'll still get paid!

      But I'm getting the fuck out. I know I can't hide, but I can sure as hell run. Deciding between Iceland, Finland, and New Zealand. If anybody knows of job openings in those countries for a database guru (SQL, Oracle BI tools) or software dev (Java, C/C++, Ruby on Rails (I know, I know), Perl, PHP) with a masters in electrical engineering, drop me a line. Thanks!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Quote from another dead hero by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would probably be better than what's in Congress right now.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    14. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Cito · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CCP is hiring game programmers in Iceland for Eve Online

      http://www.ccpgames.com/en/jobs

      best company to work for, Eve Online over 10 years old and going strong, plus 2 other mmo's being worked on

      they have offices in Atlanta, GA and Shanghai China, but Headquartered in Iceland with many job openings in Iceland, and if qualified they will even help you move to Iceland with a moving package.

    15. Re:Quote from another dead hero by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me predict what will be revealed after this.

      NSA and CIA have been working on a "behavior modeling and prediction" software for almost 20 years with huge research budgets. Very famous scientists (some of the top researchers in MIT and other institutes) have worked on the system.

      Give the data to the software and it will reveal/predict things that you yourself could not remember/know.

      This is a scary situation. It is really messy.

    16. Re:Quote from another dead hero by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Who do you think the heroes are, dumbass?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:Quote from another dead hero by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder how many "hacking attempts from China" are actually from NSA...

    18. Re:Quote from another dead hero by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the people of the US are ever going to rise up, or if it just gets much worse before it gets better.

      Of course not. As long as we have shiny new toys (even if they don't do a better job than the dull, old toys) we've been bribed to restrict our activities to bitching.

    19. Re:Quote from another dead hero by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Deciding between Iceland, Finland, and New Zealand.

      If you pick NZ, make sure you don't weigh too much. I read recently where they're expelling someone who's lived there for six or so years because he's overweight (though, oddly, LESS overweight than when they allowed him into the country and renewed his visa the last two times).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:Quote from another dead hero by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info! I'm near Atlanta now. Could maybe start there and then relocate...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    21. Re:Quote from another dead hero by tqk · · Score: 1

      lucky you kan reed, I spose :).

      Well, that certainly shores up your credibility here. I'd like a double-burger with fries and a strawberry shake, please.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    22. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spying, they can always improve upon it..

    23. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Tharkkun · · Score: 2

      I wonder if the people of the US are ever going to rise up, or if it just gets much worse before it gets better.

      Neither the UK or China has risen up yet so I'm going to guess....never? Countries other the US are more public about it yet they do the same thing.

    24. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have an SSH monitor script that emails me every morning with a list of unauthorized login attempts. These attempts have completely stopped, right about the time Snowden came out in the news. Weird.

    25. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heroes are the ones posting on Slashdot engaging in tactical name calling. I salute you brave keyboard warrior. Your sacrifices will not be forgotten.

    26. Re:Quote from another dead hero by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You know? That's America's problem. Heroes. You've gotten so used to having heroes do this, do that, that when something bad happens, you stick your head in the sand and wait for a "hero" to take care of it.

      Solve your own damned problems instead of blaming others and just watching from the sidelines. It's your country, nobody elses, and unless you don't want that to change, you better act fast.

      The problem is that there aren't any more telephone booths and we've cleaned up our radiation pollution to the point where getting bit by contaminated insects isn't very likely. Sort of a dilemma , it is.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    27. Re:Quote from another dead hero by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      I tried to mod you funny but the drop down missed to down vote. So I'm posting here cause it didn't register what I wanted and I want to clear that out from your post.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    28. Re:Quote from another dead hero by virgnarus · · Score: 2

      I recommend you read more on it than just a single ad from someone. Glassdoor.com has some reviews from it. From that and other sources I've found that there's some heavy cronyism that takes place there. So unless you wanna relocate to Iceland for the job...

    29. Re:Quote from another dead hero by xevioso · · Score: 2

      you do realize that you will have less rights overseas and be less free from NSA surveillance than you are here in the US... Most of those servers the NSA is using are not in the US... Just pointing that out....

    30. Re:Quote from another dead hero by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      you do realize that you will have less rights overseas

      Rights? Don't you mean privileges?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    31. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      See what kind of evil person Snowden was trying to hack your server?
      Thats why we are going after him!

      Sinecerely yours Mike Rogers,
      The House intelligence committee Chairman

    32. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that, or woosh! "i kan reed"

    33. Re:Quote from another dead hero by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      SPAM

      Mod parent down please

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    34. Re:Quote from another dead hero by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Seems you need Moderatrix.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    35. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      WOOSH.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    36. Re:Quote from another dead hero by nbauman · · Score: 1

      I think this is what you're trying to say:

      I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

      Debs didn't believe that you should go off into Galt Gulch, and he ultimately rejected the violence of the IWW. He believed that people should organize themselves into collective action. http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/pete_seeger/talking_union.html

      Leaders will pop up, and they can be useful, but you have to know how to be skeptical of them and you can't fall in love with them, which is a failing of liberal Democrats. http://www.barackobama.com/

    37. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run an SSH server on a non-standard port. A port that you probably wouldn't guess by chance. I had a series of attempted break-ins that I couldn't figure out the source of. If they're scanning everything, though, then I can see how they'd get that port number and try their luck.

    38. Re:Quote from another dead hero by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm doesn't do well with the wall-of-text format. There's only so many words you can read in your mind's inner "sarcastic tone" before it just feels screechy.

      Like the online version of listening to Gilbert Gottfried ...

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    39. Re:Quote from another dead hero by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the people of the US are ever going to rise up, or if it just gets much worse before it gets better.

      If they do the government will know for sure they are terrorists and act (and call/name) accordingly.

      All that practice and devices really helped! Have fun.

    40. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the people of the US are ever going to rise up, or if it just gets much worse before it gets better.

      I won't be. Me and millions of other Americans don't have a problem with this.

    41. Re:Quote from another dead hero by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      Well sure, if they're keeping as close of an eye on things as it looks all they'd be doing is tracking your outbound data from your remote location. They aren't under the same "limitations" that comsec are generally under...they get to see both sides of the conversation in real time, without obfuscation (apparently).

    42. Re:Quote from another dead hero by PNutts · · Score: 1

      Like the online version of listening to Gilbert Gottfried ...

      Gilbert Gottfried Reads Fifty Shades of Grey

    43. Re:Quote from another dead hero by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      Hey now, be fair. Superman did use a revolving door once, because the only phone booth nearby was rather unsuitable for the purpose.

    44. Re:Quote from another dead hero by G-forze · · Score: 1

      Would this happen to be Kim Dotcom?

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    45. Re:Quote from another dead hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many "hacking attempts from China" are actually from NSA...

      Most... let's just leave it at that...

  2. Before anybody asks... by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...yes. It runs Linux.

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    1. Re:Before anybody asks... by sageres · · Score: 2

      MASSIVE DISTRIBUTED LINUX CLUSTER!!!!! Yeeeey, NSA!!!!!!! As long as you are using Linux!!!!!

    2. Re:Before anybody asks... by bogie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes I saw that, and although it shouldn't by now it really pisses me off.
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation

      "Massive distributed Linux cluster"
      "System can scale Linearly - simply add a new server to the cluster"

      How about we get Linus to bury some code in there so we can spy on the NSA? See how they like it?

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    3. Re:Before anybody asks... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes I saw that, and although it shouldn't by now it really pisses me off.
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation

      "Massive distributed Linux cluster"
      "System can scale Linearly - simply add a new server to the cluster"

      How about we get Linus to bury some code in there so we can spy on the NSA? See how they like it?

      Yea... something tells me they aren't on a current, publicly available release.

      Although, the idea of secret NSA servers hitting http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ quantal main restricted does kinda crack me up.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Before anybody asks... by bogie · · Score: 1

      I know, still one can dream... :-)

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    5. Re:Before anybody asks... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Well hell, if we're dreamin', I like to think ol' Torvalds hid a backdoor killswitch into the original kernel (which still exists today), and is sitting in his skull-island-fortress doing the Finger Pyramid of Evil Contemplation as he stares at the big red button, cackling quietly and saying "soon, my pets, soon.

      Mwa ha ha."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Before anybody asks... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      How about we get Linus to bury some code in there so we can spy on the NSA? See how they like it?

      The Chinese, Russians, and no doubt other countries are way ahead of you. They love spying on the NSA. They seem to be getting volunteer help these days too. What do you think Linus will bring to the game?

      Do you think Linus will be interested in doing anything about people trying to set off car bombs at public ceremonies? Or will we still be stuck with the FBI and NSA? If Linus isn't interested in doing anything, do you think the NSA should be crippled?

      FBI: alleged Christmas tree bomber thought 9/11 'was awesome'
      Report: Canadian Terrorists Planned Truck Bomb Attack
      Suicide truck bomb kills 14 in Russia
      3 sought after 2nd car bomb found in London

      I know, you're frustrated. There is plenty to be frustrated about from just about every perspective on this. The sad part is that the only people likely to really benefit are the people that want to set of the bombs to kill innocents.

      --
      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
    7. Re:Before anybody asks... by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?

      Oh, wait.

    8. Re:Before anybody asks... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Oh, why didn't they say this from the start! If it's running Linux, it can't be evil! Everyone knows that everything evil comes from proprietary operating systems!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:Before anybody asks... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yea... something tells me they aren't on a current, publicly available release.

      You mean they've got a version where selinux actually works?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:Before anybody asks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Linus has been helping spy on the US people. Should have never given him citizenship. Try him for treason, I say.

  3. Is anyone really surprised? by intermodal · · Score: 4, Informative

    First off, almost anything "publicly" done on the Internet or through a third party server is suspect. Second, the idea that the NSA isn't doing this is patently absurd. Third, if you believe the NSA when they deny doing things like this, you are an idiot. Espionage agencies are basically required to lie. It's in their job description. Quite literally, their job is to deceive people.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First off, almost anything "publicly" done on the Internet or through a third party server is suspect. Second, the idea that the NSA isn't doing this is patently absurd. Third, if you believe the NSA when they deny doing things like this, you are an idiot.

      The FBI has the capability to bust down my door at any time. Pretty much anybody with a boot can bust through my door. The capability isn't a problem. I'm comfortable with the capability existing, because I don't know where I can buy an unkickdownable door. That's why instead I have this piece of paper that says nobody can kick down my door without being a legitimate executive of a warrant signed by a judge who agreed there is probable cause I've violated a law passed by representatives I had a say in electing. The capability to kick down doors doesn't scare me. However, the kicking down of doors without following the rules on that piece of paper terrifies me.

      I've been on these internets for awhile now. BBSes long before that, playing Legend of the Red Dragon at 1200 baud on the Crunchy Booger. And there were plenty of jokes in IRC about there being No Such Agency that reads your e-mail. And I long suspected they had the capability to do these things. And after the room 641A disclosure, I knew they had the capability to do this.

      Hell, I demand they have the capability to do these things. After all, you can't execute a warrant to tap a phone without having the capability to tap a phone.

      But the idea that the NSA is sucking up and storing forever my emails, my phone records, my financial records, hell, the logs of every time and location my 13-year old niece has called for pizza...that is what was absurd. Completely, bonkers insane and absurd.

      And they're doing it. That's the craziest thing.

      You want to know what the banality of evil looks like? Not the kind of monstrous evil of murder or slavery or genocide. Just the simple, mechanical, banality of evil? That they're fucking doing it. To me, to you, to my wife, to my mom, to my sister, to my brother, to my nieces and nephews. My son's 10 months old, and as soon as he's old enough to have a thought in his head they'll start trying to pry it out.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by xevioso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real elephant in the room here is how this is really very dangerous for democracy.

      I have yet to hear any politician discuss the REAL threat here, in the long run...the threat to American Democracy itself.

      Imagine the following scenario: A guy like Snowden, hired by a Republican/Democratic senator, gets a job with Booz Allen, and proceeds to use these tools to spy on the political campaign of either their direct opponent in a campaign, or the opposing candidate in an election campaign. They are able to make up an excuse and take this information out, and pass it on to their candidate.

      And then one day this information gets out, that someone was spying, ala Nixon-style on everything the opponent was doing. If you think the sh** is hitting the fan now, just you wait until THAT happens. Hell hath no fury like a politician who has been spied upon.

    3. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by xevioso · · Score: 1

      I should say, "opposing candidate in a PRESIDENTIAL election campaign"

    4. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      If you think the sh** is hitting the fan now, just you wait until THAT happens. Hell hath no fury like a politician who has been spied upon.

      Why are you assuming it hasn't happened yet? Interstate exit Taco Bells hath no pants-crapping like politicians who have already been spied upon.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Nixon would probably get away with it these days. He'd just claim the burglers were conducting an anti-terrorism investigation and he had no personal knowledge of it.

      Actually, he *did* get away with it. His career was knocked back, but all the blame and the charges fell upon his underlings. Nixon himself resigned, then was granted an unconditional pardon - a very broad one - by his successor. Ford was a fellow Republican, and knew that if Nixon were prosecuted it would bring the entire party into disrepute.

      So the lesson? If you're president, and you abuse your power to try to spy upon your political opponents and disrupt their election campaign, you will be granted immunity and retire to a life of casual wealth.

    6. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by intermodal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even with what he did, he'd have got away with it today. What Nixon did is basically nothing at all compared to today's political espionage between our factions.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    7. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      But the idea that the NSA is sucking up and storing forever my emails, my phone records, my financial records, hell, the logs of every time and location my 13-year old niece has called for pizza...that is what was absurd. Completely, bonkers insane and absurd.

      And nobody's denying that it's absurd, not even the NSA. They're trying hard to avoid saying it, but yeah, I'm sure the NSA knows exactly how ridiculous the whole thing is...

      To me, to you, to my wife, to my mom, to my sister, to my brother, to my nieces and nephews.

      Of course they are, because you, me, your wife, your mom, your sister, your brother, or your nieces or nephews may be the next Unabomber, or the next McVeigh. Sure, you know they're safe and reasonable enough, but the NSA doesn't. All the NSA knows at this point is that your neice's phone just called a guy who recently purchased a half-ton of fertilizer, and "she" supposedly ordered a "pizza".

      Of course, the guy could just be interested in growing his own produce for his latest culinary masterpiece. On the other hand, your niece's cell phone may have been stolen to distribute orders in a coordinated attack. Before such an attack, the government can't know, because we don't have adequate enough surveillance for that yet. After the attack, though, it's pretty easy to look at the pizza guy's records and see that he's ordered fertilizer every spring for the past decade, and to consider that the phone was then used to check on upcoming Bieber tour dates... and your niece is not a suspect any more; no warrant needed.

      The NSA is following the same approach as Big Data companies: Gather everything, and expect to need only a tiny amount of it. What's most objectionable to me is that this is secret. Personally, I'd love to be secure in the knowledge that I have a big searchable database of my activities ripe for subpoena. A highly-accurate and relatively-complete record of all my informational activities? It's better trial evidence than DNA. Of course, so as not to defeat the security aspects, such evidence should be reviewed in secret by a judge before each use, but now we're getting into implementation details.

      Such a database could be used against citizens, though... It's far too easy to blur the line from "investigator" to "enforcer". That's the gist of this article, though. Snowden said that anybody can search for anybody, without needing a warrant. That's also objectionable... It'd be better if the database had a mechanism to log searches and their authorizations, so the fourth amendment can be respected without crippling our investigative abilities.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    8. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So next time a thief breaks into your house or steals your car, I suppose you will say "oh well it's their job, watcha gonna do bout it"?

    9. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the sh** is hitting the fan now, just you wait until THAT happens. Hell hath no fury like a politician who has been spied upon.

      Why are you assuming it hasn't happened yet? Interstate exit Taco Bells hath no pants-crapping like politicians who have already been spied upon.

      I submit to you, Anthony Wiener, as evidence that politics will continue to be politics despite any level of government surveillance. If anything, it could get a lot less corrupt than it is now.

    10. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by intermodal · · Score: 2

      If a thief breaks into my house or steals my car, I'll take the same position I take towards the NSA. That the only course of action is to take the necessary measures to ensure it stops. In the thief's case, locking him up generally works for the term of incarceration. In the NSA's case, ending the program is a nice step, but ending the NSA would be better. You can't fix an organization that is so deeply corrupted. If the agency's functions are necessary, start a new one from the ground up, with none of the same people and with no remnants of the old one remaining.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    11. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I demand they have the capability to do these things. After all, you can't execute a warrant to tap a phone without having the capability to tap a phone.

      I'd rather they didn't have the capability at all. Scrap them all, I say.

    12. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      so the fourth amendment can be respected without crippling our investigative abilities.

      That's already possible without any invasive, useless, and overly-paranoid databases.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    13. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree. Most political systems are already broken, and the NSA won't make them much work. Civil society, however, is not broken, and the NSA can break that. So no, the elephant in the room is the danger to we the people, not to the (ex)democracy.

    14. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real elephant in the room here is how this is really very dangerous for democracy.

      I have yet to hear any politician discuss the REAL threat here, in the long run...the threat to American Democracy itself.

      Imagine the following scenario: A guy like Snowden, hired by a Republican/Democratic senator, gets a job with Booz Allen, and proceeds to use these tools to spy on the political campaign of either their direct opponent in a campaign, or the opposing candidate in an election campaign. They are able to make up an excuse and take this information out, and pass it on to their candidate.

      And then one day this information gets out, that someone was spying, ala Nixon-style on everything the opponent was doing. If you think the sh** is hitting the fan now, just you wait until THAT happens. Hell hath no fury like a politician who has been spied upon.

      Um, I'm going to point out the peeps like Snowden are rare. People are abusing the database, because there is no one to stop them from it. Until Snowden were didn't really know/have proof that it existed. Now we know. A secret DB with info on everyone, that has lax enough security measures that a low level employee walked out with copies of data. So if you have access to it, you have access to information almost no one else has. I would be shocked if there wasn't NSA employes using this to make money/get info they shouldn't.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    15. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I think it's a bit simpler than that already.
       
      Why do you think that an incoming president who was pro government transparency suddenly changed their tune once they were in office? Well, they just had a little meeting with the NSA guys you see, and the NSA, who were already spying on eveyone, produced a little report about that President and all the dirty little secrets he had. Maybe the source of all his campaign finance - including the illegal ones, and the flirting emails with one of his young staff members, and his daughter's drug experimentation, and his wife's nude self pics. "It would be a shame, wouldn't it, if all this got leaked out? - but rest assured, with your support for our program, it never will".
       
      Bingo, instant presidential support. Now just rinse and repeat with all the important senators and you have everyone in power behind you.

    16. Re:Is anyone really surprised? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm going to point out the peeps like Snowden are rare. People are abusing the database, because there is no one to stop them from it. Until Snowden were didn't really know/have proof that it existed. Now we know. A secret DB with info on everyone, that has lax enough security measures that a low level employee walked out with copies of data. So if you have access to it, you have access to information almost no one else has. I would be shocked if there wasn't NSA employes using this to make money/get info they shouldn't.

      Is there any evidence whatsoever that Snowden actually walked out with a copy of the DB or any data it contained? Is there any evidence that Snowden actually had *access* to this database? Is there any evidence that every query against it is not logged and subject to internal oversight?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  4. Honest, I SWEAR . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . I bought that Midnight Sparkle inflatable love-pony for a FRIEND.

    1. Re:Honest, I SWEAR . . . by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Next time, go and buy doggy treats and condoms.

      What? I don't want my dog to ruin the fun by barking so I have to keep him busy somehow while I fuck hi... my girlfriend.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Honest, I SWEAR . . . by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Next time, go and buy doggy treats and condoms.

      What? I don't want my dog to ruin the fun by barking so I have to keep him busy somehow while I fuck hi... my girlfriend.

      In a hilariously incidental twist, today is the ASPCA's annual adopt-a-pet gala on Capitol Hill...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Honest, I SWEAR . . . by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      No, wait, it was yesterday.

      Still funny.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  5. The NSA is out of control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They run themselves. They have a secret court where defendants are not allowed to attend, and are not even told they are on trial. They lie to congress. They lie to the president. They have an unlimited secret budget that nobody can check. They appear to be mostly controlled by the contractors and companies that sell them services. It's a giant graft. Private parties are helping themselves to public money, creating a surveillance state for unknown reasons under the guise fighting terrorism.

    This is going to end badly. People with money and lots of power don't give up their toys easily. Expect to see the following soon: Lots of assassinations, or the NSA being raided by another enforcement branch of govt. Or maybe both.

  6. The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by TWiTfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every public statement they make is a fucking lie. If they tell you it's sunny outside, you can bet that it's raining. They lie to Congress, they lie to the public, they lie to the President. When they go home at night, they lie to their wives and kids. They tell their dying grandmothers that they're fine and don't need chemo. They take down "Road Closed" signs and laugh when people wreck their cars as a result. They will climb a tree to lie when they could stand on the ground and tell the truth.

    They always lie. They always WILL lie.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every public statement they make is a fucking lie. If they tell you it's sunny outside, you can bet that it's raining. They lie to Congress, they lie to the public, they lie to the President. When they go home at night, they lie to their wives and kids. They tell their dying grandmothers that they're fine and don't need chemo. They take down "Road Closed" signs and laugh when people wreck their cars as a result. They will climb a tree to lie when they could stand on the ground and tell the truth.

      They always lie. They always WILL lie.

      Not true. When you assume that they're always lying, they'll tell the truth, under the secure knowledge that you won't believe them.

      For them it's not about truth/falsehood, it's about manipulation of people to achieve the desired ends. People who always assume they lie are much easier to manipulate than those who continually think critically.

    2. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing thats because there is absolutely no incentive not to lie and all to gain by lying.

      Once upon time the people used to bring out the torches, pitchforks and hanging rope for lesser things.

      The US populace is complacent and appearently supporting the ones abusing the power BY NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

      They want it, theyre going to get it.

    3. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon time the people used to bring out the torches, pitchforks and hanging rope for lesser things.

      I'd settle for the time-honored tar and feathers.

    4. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They tell their dying grandmothers that they're fine and don't need chemo. They take down "Road Closed" signs and laugh when people wreck their cars as a result.

      WTF are you talking about?

      No one ever thanks a whistleblower, no matter how much good they do.

      Uh, this is not true, you realize that, right?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metaphorically, the parent is entirely right. :-)

      I think there might have been a bit of a Whoosh! there.

    6. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They always lie. They always WILL lie.

      No, you are being unfair. They very carefully analyze what they are and what they are not allowed to do, and then tell a story corresponding to what they are permitted to do that matches their funding. Perhaps the storytellers are not even informed about what actually happens in order not to distract them.

      Every other enterprise acting in that manner would at some point of time get into problems because they need to be accountable with what they claim they do for their money.

      Not so the NSA. In particular not when they are doing more than they are paid for.

    7. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for people standing in the streets going "Rabble Rabble Rabble". It's better than the apathy we've got now.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    8. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "People who always assume they lie are much easier to manipulate than those who continually think critically."

      The delectability of imagined special insight is what drives uncritical paranoia. It's like religion, where the believer feels "safer" because they don't have to think to believe they know what is happening.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:The NSA is lying, ALWAYS by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      It's like religion, where the believer feels "safer" because they don't have to think to believe they know what is happening.

      Are you talking about conspiracy buffs, or government agents?

  7. metadata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "we only plan to store metadata" my buntrocks.

    1. Re:metadata by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, they just omitted "'cause we already store pretty much the rest".

      You gotta let them end their sentences...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:metadata by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Hey, they just omitted "'cause we already store pretty much the rest".

      You gotta let them end their sentences...

      I was thinking more along the lines of, "Because Facebook and Google store the rest of it for us."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:metadata by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      NSA only store metadata. They hire and pay pretty well private companies to store the full data, so NSA can access later, and the private companies could access every time they want, to take the maximum profit from it. Don't be surprised if you find patented a joke you told a friend last summer.

    4. Re:metadata by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Yea a 10Mb call detail record.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  8. VPNs not safe from the NSA by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lovely bullet point:

    * Show me all the VPN startups in country X, and give me the data so I can decrypt and discover the users.

    Translation: not only do you have no privacy, doing what you think will make you hidden will just shine a spotlight on yourself.

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    1. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by intermodal · · Score: 2

      I've heard the same about using Tor. Personally, I support the idea of everyone using Tor just to screw with them and make them dig through more irrelevant crap. I want them to have to dig through my pictures of cats saying silly things if they're sifting traffic. I want them to have to see the recipe I used to make that batch of beer-braised short ribs. I want them to have to look at pages and pages of sports scores or movie reviews.

      I would put this right up there with those who argue that refusing a warrantless search is probable cause to search. If we don't demand our rights and make their infringement attempts more visible in the public eye as well as more difficult, our rights will disappear.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by geogob · · Score: 2

      Or they crawl under piles of VPN requests from GEMA-pist off germans.

    3. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Along the same lines, I've wondered exactly where the line is when "admitting" that you've committed a crime. Obviously I wouldn't suggest that people start talking like they're a terrorist, but is it against the law to "admit" to robbing a bank that hasn't been robbed? Is it against the law to talk in depth about an AK47 that I don't own (as though I do own it)? I would imagine with enough people pretending that they've committed crimes that their monitoring would become useless.

      Seriously, what are they going to do? Break into my house and grab me while I'm in the middle of typ

    4. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yankee pot roast was delicious.

      End trans

    5. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I'm glad yours came out good as well! I was concerned the Atlantic humidity out at Fort Meade might be an issue.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    6. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but is it against the law to "admit" to robbing a bank that hasn't been robbed?

      Against the law? No. But if that bank does get robbed, they can easily pin it on you.

      It's an admission of guilt. If you say you were lying, they will simply say "statement against interests" to "prove" that you weren't lying.

    7. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I don't know that outright lying is comparable to simply refusing to make one's possessions, data, and information readily available to anyone who wants to see it, but I do see the point you're trying to make.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    8. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      If you sell a cop a baggie of powdered sugar, it's still drug dealing even if they know its sugar, so I'm sure that the government will happily extraordinarily rendition you without bothering to check if you're telling the truth.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Manfre · · Score: 1

      Need to submit a FOIA request for the beer-braised short rib recipe.

    10. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I support the idea of everyone using Tor just to screw with them and make them dig through more irrelevant crap.

      This is an outdated idea of surveillance. They don't have to manually sift through data anymore, anything of interest to them is a simple query away.

    11. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's why most governments have a charge like 'making terroristic threats' to use.

    12. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by intermodal · · Score: 1

      See, if you'd just get a job with an NSA contractor, you could get it from PRISM! And they are delightful. What the NSA doesn't know (until I hit submit) is that I used a little cornstarch to turn the cooking liquid into a gravy and served it over mashed potatoes and added a side of steamed broccoli. Maryland is going to smell good once they find this one...

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    13. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      Well, "refusal" implies some semblance of control over our information. Now, I can avoid the hell out of posting on Facebook or G+. I can avoid going to Reddit (hell, or even coming here). What I cannot avoid are things like emailing my resume` to tech companies or making/taking phone calls...these are things that are pretty well necessary in this day and age unless I'm selling carved up driftwood for a living. Since I (and others) aren't being given the option to protect our own information, I think that "poisoning the (data) well" is the next best thing. If the data that they have is complete garbage, it doesn't do them any good to track me.

    14. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Sure, but every data point they have to search through and store is that much more hassle for them. especially if you encrypt it, since they seem to target that without discrimination.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    15. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      While I understand what you're saying (even if I disagree that it's a crime), I think there's a big difference between giving the appearance of committing a crime and just saying that you've committed it. Or maybe it's not a big difference at all :p

      If the gold has not been stolen out of Fort Knox and I'm claiming that I've taken all of it I don't think that's necessarily the same as selling a bag of sugar :)

    16. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree, it works up until you get disappeared. Falsehoods can still run afoul of various laws, while increasting the pool of difficult to access, trace, and/or decrypt data is completely legal.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    17. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like your recipe for your beer braised short ribs, sounds really good. I am just starting to get into Tor and vpn's in response to what we all know has been on-going for decades. time to destroy / poison the well of their illegal databases, at least. push for legislation to have them all arrested, if not, grab your guns and start shooting to reclaim your Rights and Freedoms. You Americans are living in a decades OLD, well entrenched culture of deception from the President on down. time to dismantle and arrest the lot of them and rewrite the laws to prevent these circumstances from arsing in the future. Make Influence Peddling the Crime Against Humanity that it is, and jail for life, accordingly, make it retroactive to the 60's so everyone involved in establishing and perpetuating the current corrupt corporatocracy, and MIC and dragnetted and jailed for the remainder of their lives, including the confiscation of all their properties, ill-gotten gains, from the backs of the citizens.... unfortunately the Influence Peddling is destroying other nations such as Canada, Australia, and UK, with erosion of OUR Rights as well, under the guise of your False Flag 9 eleven....

    18. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Translation: not only do you have no privacy, doing what you think will make you hidden will just shine a spotlight on yourself.

      It sounds like a fantastic opportunity to troll the NSA. What would it take to automate creating VPN or TOR connections to servers all over the world (it looks like they have a focus in Europe and the Middle East, particularly the area around Israel and UAE) where the clients just connect, exchange some random text including a few choice keywords, and pass around a couple images of goatse and lemonparty (maybe embedded inside an encrypted Word document, for good measure)?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    19. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 1

      Well, standard policing is increasingly being handled by SWAT team raids anyway, so there is not much of a difference in application between parking fines and threats to the state.

    20. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read this article here http://torrentfreak.com/mastercard-and-visa-start-banning-vpn-providers-130703/

      It talks about how private VPN providers are being cracked down, in a way that they are no longer able to take payments. The motivations are sad, and obviously part of a bigger conspiracy.

    21. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want them to have to see the recipe I used to make that batch of beer-braised short ribs.

      What is that recipe? Please do tell.

    22. Re:VPNs not safe from the NSA by Suffering+Bastard · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what are they going to do? Break into my house and grab me while I'm in the middle of typ

      At least that nice NSA officer was friendly enough to hit the Submit button for you.

      --
      "Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
      - Deep Thought
  9. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would anyone assume the database includes only suspects that they're authorized to track? Given the track record of the NSA it is less likely that that is the case and it is more likely that they have anyone they want in it.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  10. "Congressional hearings" by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bogus! It's a congressional coverup designed to rationalize all this bullshit, with people like Pelosi on her knees before the NSA. Of course what makes it worse is the idiot public who believes all this crap and reelects these bums. How do we stop them from voting away our rights?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:"Congressional hearings" by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      While I have no doubt that Pelosi is probably all in with the NSA, she's not running the House.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:"Congressional hearings" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I had an idea, but my lawyer said it's illegal for simple citizens to own atomic bombs.

      2nd amendment my ass...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:"Congressional hearings" by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Your language and reference to Pelosi makes me think that you believe this is a partisan issue.

      I do want to point out that Republicans in the House voted to keep the spying program at a rate of 2:1. Democrats voted against the spying program (in favor of the budget cut) by a factor of 1.5:1.

      But the biggest correlation are those who receive money from the defense industry. Those who voted to keep the spying program get over $40k from defense contractors and those who voted against it got an average of only $12k.

    4. Re:"Congressional hearings" by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the story first broke, Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, Fienstein, McCain, all formed a wall around the Agency.

      "It's all legal! We've been briefed!"

      Which group looks like they have the power in that situation?

      If Obama said "Ice cream is tasty" Boehner would hold a press conference about how only secret muslim communists with plots to install sharia law like ice cream, and real, honest, hard-working middle-class Americans eat pie.

      But the one thing Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, Fienstein, McCain, and Dick fucking Cheney can all agree on is the legality, Constitutionality, appropriateness and necessity of collecting, analyzing and storing forever every phone call and email my 13-year old niece makes. For national security.

      (repeat of something I posted last month)

      Scarier part: why aren't they blaming each other for this "serious overreach?" That they will then investigate, have some hearings, and then go right back to biz as usual? That's all politicians do. Make vague, meaningless statements and take no responsibility, blame everyone else, then do nothing. Instead they're making firm, direct statements. "Legal!" "Constitutional!" "Full oversight!"

      Why are they so far off script? Here's how the script is supposed to go:

      Snowden: "They doin' teh snoops!"
      Democrats: "Bush started it!"
      Republicans: "Saint Bush never would have authorized this! This must be part of a secret communist Muslim plan to install sharia law!"
      Obama: "No, really it was just the Cincinnati branch of the NSA!"
      Senate committee: "Thank you for your service, Mr. Snowden for bringing this overreach to our attention. We've got top men working to correct it. Top. Men."
      Snowden: "No prob, I'll go rot in obscurity now."
      Clapper: "Ow. My wrist. From the slapping. Wheeeeeelp, back to the shadows for biz as usual."

      The mask isn't just slipping. It's on the floor. The man behind the curtain is doing a tap dance. Just what the fuck is going on?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:"Congressional hearings" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA is an "internal" thing. It's not yet on the radar of things to politicize. All of these politicians follow the advice and breifings of the NSA, so of course the NSA is going to be defended by them. The NSA obviously isn't going to say "Hey we're wiping our ass with the constitution here" to their bosses. They're going to portray themselves and their activity in a positive light. The real problem is that there are zero oversight mechanisms in the NSA, so there is nobody to say otherwise.

      All this will change. The NSA is in the light and any credibility they had is gone.

    6. Re:"Congressional hearings" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we stop them from voting away our rights?

      Stop them from always voting for the likely winner. The project takes three generations of deep psychological counter-manipulation from the kinder garden and up. After the minimum of 60 years the situation might be changed, if all goes well.

    7. Re:"Congressional hearings" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      Your language and reference to Pelosi makes me think that you believe this is a partisan issue.

      No, that's backwards. Dickheads like Pelosi and John Boner are nothing if not partisan, so when you see those people agreeing on something (along with Obama and Cheney), you know something is wrong. It's not that this is or is not a partisan issue (it's not, it's a people-vs-the-government issue), it's just weird that all of the hyper-partisan politicians are now agreeing with each other. That's a red flag that something seriously wrong is going on (and yeah, it's kind of sad to say that, but it's true).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:"Congressional hearings" by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I had an idea, but my lawyer said it's illegal for simple citizens to own atomic bombs.

      2nd amendment my ass...

      Not true.

      I've built three so far, and now I'm working on my first fusion device. I convince people who see them that they're just complicated high-tech home-built cappuccino machines.

      Anyone have a few pounds of plutonium and a couple of gallons of deuterium I can borrow? I hate to bother the neighbors.

      Hi NSA! Care for a cup of cappuccino? I make a cup of cappuccino that'll blow you away!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:"Congressional hearings" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The emperor knows he is naked and knows he can flop his junk in the people's face, because they think he is clothed, and someone pointing out he has no clothing is obviously a traitor and an enemy.

    10. Re:"Congressional hearings" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I got a set of W88 plans on Alibaba.com

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:"Congressional hearings" by Nyder · · Score: 1

      When the story first broke, Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, Fienstein, McCain, all formed a wall around the Agency.

      "It's all legal! We've been briefed!"

      Which group looks like they have the power in that situation?

      If Obama said "Ice cream is tasty" Boehner would hold a press conference about how only secret muslim communists with plots to install sharia law like ice cream, and real, honest, hard-working middle-class Americans eat pie.

      But the one thing Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, Fienstein, McCain, and Dick fucking Cheney can all agree on is the legality, Constitutionality, appropriateness and necessity of collecting, analyzing and storing forever every phone call and email my 13-year old niece makes. For national security.

      (repeat of something I posted last month)

      Scarier part: why aren't they blaming each other for this "serious overreach?" That they will then investigate, have some hearings, and then go right back to biz as usual? That's all politicians do. Make vague, meaningless statements and take no responsibility, blame everyone else, then do nothing. Instead they're making firm, direct statements. "Legal!" "Constitutional!" "Full oversight!"

      Why are they so far off script? Here's how the script is supposed to go:

      Snowden: "They doin' teh snoops!"
      Democrats: "Bush started it!"
      Republicans: "Saint Bush never would have authorized this! This must be part of a secret communist Muslim plan to install sharia law!"
      Obama: "No, really it was just the Cincinnati branch of the NSA!"
      Senate committee: "Thank you for your service, Mr. Snowden for bringing this overreach to our attention. We've got top men working to correct it. Top. Men."
      Snowden: "No prob, I'll go rot in obscurity now."
      Clapper: "Ow. My wrist. From the slapping. Wheeeeeelp, back to the shadows for biz as usual."

      The mask isn't just slipping. It's on the floor. The man behind the curtain is doing a tap dance. Just what the fuck is going on?

      The problem is the NSA paid all this money to it's congress & senate peeps to support the NSA, and that is what they are doing. Fortunately for the American people Snowden tipped us off to what was really going. And the NSA wasn't smart enough change with what was going on.

      The congressmen & senators all did what they were paid to do by the NSA. It's just this is the internet age and nothing stays hidden on the internet. NSA should of known that.

       

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:"Congressional hearings" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone has got all their balls daisy chained to a shredder... =)

    13. Re:"Congressional hearings" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you fail to understand how effective human incompetence is at preventing proper conspiracies.

  11. Sunlight by hhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For me the only viable solution is making the NSA's work/effort and all of their data capture completely transparent with audit trails, Etc. not to stop them, but so when the abuses do come we can figure out who did want and seek redress.

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
    1. Re:Sunlight by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean, like, the same way we do when some corporation does it?

      1) Catch them red handed.
      2) Fight through years of legal bullshit battles.
      3) Have them convicted
      4) Hear a press conference where all the upper echelons swear they didn't know and it was all an idea from some bad apple below them.
      5) Have them fire some uninvolved mid-level scapegoat.
      6) See them receive a slap on the wrist, which is more insult than an acquittal would have been (since you can't even appeal it).
      7) Continue doing whatever they did before that started this process.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Sunlight by hhawk · · Score: 1

      I didn't promise nor did I describe an Utopian system. WIth the current system they could be blackmailing anyone, using it for insider trading, Etc. Etc., The NSA has said they can't SEARCH their own email system. They can search YOURS.. but not THEIR OWN.. http://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-says-it-cant-search-own-emails

      Thus, even with a legitimate suing of them there just isn't any discovery! No opportunity to learn what they did, and when they did it.

      My point again, if you can't stop them, and I just don't see how that is possible, the best case left is to pour in the sunlight..

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
    3. Re:Sunlight by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Just like banks? You know, in the front door of the DOJ there is a typo, someone put the word "Justice" there. You could be sentenced by centuries for things that don't harm anyone, but they will keep go free, no matter if they stole trillons, caused the death of thousands, or just broke hundreds of laws, even if its found out.

    4. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're country can't even prosecute connected torturers. How do you imagine connected snoops will get prosecuted?

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

      Just like banks? You know, in the front door of the DOJ there is a typo, someone put the word "Justice" there. You could be sentenced by centuries for things that don't harm anyone, but they will keep go free, no matter if they stole trillons, caused the death of thousands, or just broke hundreds of laws, even if its found out.

      Just like banks? You know, in the front door of the DOJ there is a typo, someone put the word "Justice" there. You could be sentenced by centuries for things that don't harm anyone, but they will keep go free, no matter if they stole trillons, caused the death of thousands, or just broke hundreds of laws, even if its found out.

      It's supposed to read "Just us" not "Justice"

  12. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The burden of proof lies with the government, not Snowden.

  13. Russia by sageres · · Score: 1

    Now how did they get their server in a territory of Russia? I understand Ukraine, but Russia???!!!!!

    1. Re:Russia by sageres · · Score: 1

      And there is one in China according to the map as well...

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

      I'ld tell you but then I'ld have to...

    3. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those would likely be _inside_ embassys, as would those in some other countries.

      As for redirecting the traffic to be processed _onto_ these servers, they would need either:
      - Exploitable security vulnerabilities in networking equipment (internet, private networks over public infrastructure, phone services, etc...)
      - Agents in place that reconfigure said networking equipment (or order said configurations)
      - Cooperation from local authorities

      Just add a network connection with the required bandwidth (whose capacity might raise some eyebrows on that country).

    4. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create an ISP, which does actually provide services but whose real purpose is to hide the server machine tied into the pipes?

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

      Embassy grounds. And/or cloud hosting.

      Everyone's throwing their shit in the cloud, man.

    6. Re:Russia by sageres · · Score: 1

      Yes I was just thinking about that.. What they showing on a slices is a raw TCP traffic. In order to get it at that level they have to be sniffing on the same network as a major router. How did they get there in their hosts countries?

    7. Re:Russia by mbone · · Score: 1

      Two possibilities come to mind :

      These servers are at Embassies or Consulates, which means that what they receive from the local net is likely to be filtered, or...

      They have set up dummy corporations, and have servers sitting in commercial internet provider spaces in those countries.

      (Or, of course, both.) Note that there appear to be no servers in Southern India, which has a lot of Internet colo sites (Bangalore, Hyderabad, etc.), which is in favor of option 1. Also note that there is only one site in Brazil, in Brasilia, which is of course where the Embassy is, but is by no means a hub of Internet traffic, also in favor of option 1.

      Also note that there are no servers in Canada. What do you want to bet that there is a backstory there.

      At any rate, I suspect that most of these servers are the equivalent of the google spiders (i..e., doing active probing). The data they really want can only be gotten at a hub with the cooperation of the local Internet provider, and I would be astounded if Russia or China went along with that.

    8. Re:Russia by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm not looking as silly as my old boss thought in my security concerns regarding the cloud...

      whatever "the cloud" is. It's pretty much a nonsense term meaning "wherever the hell it is, it isn't here."

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian, most of my internet traffic seems to pass through the US at some point. For the little that doesn't, I'm sure "the Harper GovernmentTM" is cooperating fully.

    10. Re:Russia by mbone · · Score: 1

      A significant amount of your traffic to the UK and the rest of the world goes through the fiber optic landing site in Halifax. See http://www.submarinecablemap.com/

    11. Re:Russia by Arker · · Score: 1

      In many cases (UK and Germany for example) they appear to have special access facilitated by their indigenous counterparts (at least in part because they can effectively nullify their own privacy laws by giving an ally who is not bound by them access and 'cooperating.')

      It would be a bit surprising if the Russian (or Chinese) services were so willing to cooperate, however. Ironically because they do not have any worries about pretending to follow such laws themselves, but still. Others have mentioned that these appear to coincide with Embassies in placement, but any connection leading to the Embassy itself is surely going to be very carefully shielded in either of those countries, which would limit their utility somewhat. Then again we dont necessarily understand exactly what they are doing with these servers either so that might not be a problem.

      I can think of at least one rather devious and nearly undetectable way such a server could be used to further the program, but I wont mention it on the off chance I give someone else the idea.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    12. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you missed the slide about 'show me all of the exploitable servers in country X'

    13. Re:Russia by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that some of those sites could also just be access servers that allow the relevent software to be run and might not be the servers doing the actual probing.

    14. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Help broker a deal for more cisco DPI gear?D

  14. page 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rolling buffer of 3 days of ALL unfiltered data? So much for not collecting content.

    1. Re:page 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but you see it's not collecting. It's "buffering". Much like it's not torture, it's "enhanced interrogation"

  15. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Kool-Aid tastes good, huh? The authorities should have to prove their innocence. That is the price we have to demand for such power. Put them all under the Sword of Damocles.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What part of PRISM didn't you get? The part where they hoover up data on everyone without a warrant or the part where they don't have to justify it to anyone?

  17. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what does being a bootlicker pay these days?

  18. More info by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wikipedia has an entry on it: X-Keyscore

    Good background story: Solving the mystery of PRISM

    Spiegel Online covered it: 'Key Partners': Secret Links Between Germany and the NSA

    Oddly enough it appears that news about intelligence programs used by America and its allies is reported in Persian. Go figure.

    --
    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
    1. Re:More info by arf_barf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know if I was the only one that picked it up, but the slides are for a version of software that was in use in 2008. Considering everything else, the capabilities now are more likely to be much more advanced.

  19. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by MiG82au · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I take it you either failed to read or comprehend the presentation then. Unless I'm misunderstanding, slide 18 makes it pretty clear.

  20. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You can do most of what Snowden says for free on the internet with a couple of specific search engines for pete's sake. For instance: https://pipl.com/search/?q=Jeff+Flanagan&l=Bolingbrook%2C+IL%2C+US&sloc=US|IL|Bolingbrook&in=5
    That's a literal 3 seconds of work on a publicly available site without an email address, doesn't require an extensive database for even that small amount of information and your profile is relatively clean. They've already admitted that nearly the entire US was in their "authorized" group of people through 3 hops from the target. I'd guess that their software has access to a lot more than this really simple public tool, and even some of the paid tools. Make no mistake I can ruin your life without NSA tools, the NSA can most definitely do what Snowden was saying they could do and believes it has the authority to do so.

  21. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless someone can demonstrate that this database includes data on everyone, rather than suspects that they're authorized to track.

    Because they have been saying they need to collect everything so that when they know what they're looking for it's already there.

    They've been steadily expanding into the "record everything" domain for years now.

    I see no reason to doubt that they're grabbing everything they can get and then deciding if it's pertinent later. That's been their stated goal for a long time.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  22. Search their own e-mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they couldn't search their own e-mail? It can't be that good a tool if they don't even use it on their own stuff.

    1. Re:Search their own e-mail? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      *gasp*

      You did assume that someone was allowed to use surveillance on the NSA? What audacity! Of course there need not be any oversight or restraints. It's for the good of the nation. Protecting terrorism and fighting children. Or something like that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Search their own e-mail? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I thought they couldn't search their own e-mail

      Haha, you believed that one, did you? Yeah, it was funny when I read it too. Do keep in mind that it was their reply to a FOIA request for their email.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  23. How did the government pull this off? by null+etc. · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's shocking to discover that the government can actually accomplish anything, as opposed to wasting $800 million in taxpayer money with nothing to show for it.

    1. Re:How did the government pull this off? by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      Dont worry, the populace will not benefit from the success of the program in any way or form.

    2. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Holi · · Score: 1

      It's not that they have nothing to show for the money they spent, it's just they won't show us what they actually spend the money on.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It may be shocking to discover that the "Government can't do anything and only wastes money" is a narrative constructed to influence your thoughts and behavior. To what end you ask? Well, that's the tough part. If you're under the influence of the narrative you have no way to tell.

      It could be that the government (all things considered( does a reasonable job, and the people constructing the narrative have something to benefit by portraying the government as useless and wasteful.

      It could be the government is actually very effective, but wants you to think it isn't so you're complacent and unaware.

      You could also be right.. But you don't know for sure until you challenge your beliefs and go poking around below the "surface". Personally, I've found being right and not knowing why to be far worse than being wrong and then discovering why I was wrong.

    4. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didnt they outsourced to private enterprise who did it as por hamf isted job of it as the government would have but at 8 times the cost. bargain.

    5. Re:How did the government pull this off? by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      It's shocking to discover that the government can actually accomplish anything, as opposed to wasting $800 million in taxpayer money with nothing to show for it.

      Assuming they are telling the truth about 50+ plots being foiled, then another way to look at it is that it costs them around $16 million per foiled plot. That sounds like a big number but in light of September 11 that is comparitively cheap to the $100 billion plus finaincal impact.

    6. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Why is this doable and the problems with Veterans Administration medical records an impossibility?

    7. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it's used to hurt somebody, humans can have the most ingenious ideas. Think of the massive effort put towards the Manhattan Project versus the state of nuclear fission power today.

    8. Re:How did the government pull this off? by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Horrific analogy. A nuclear fission explosion is a one off device that is relatively simple for an industrial society to produce (the smaller it is the harder it is to do, but still relatively simple). A nuclear fission power plant is an entirely different animal and is much more complicated. A one time use "gadget" will always be much easier to make than something meant to run 24/7 for 90%+ of the year for many years. It is much easier to take gasoline, pour it on a hot surface, wait a few moments then ignite the gas in a fireball than it is to build a car capable of harnessing the same energy.

      Nuclear fission actually DOES have a pretty good safety record by the way. The three publicized major problems are due to: 1. massive human error in judgement (Chernobyl), 2. major mechanical failures compounded by inadequate training and faulty assumptions (Three Mile Island), 3. gigantic earthquake and subsequent tsunami well in excess of the planned emergencies (Fukashima).

    9. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's shocking to discover that the government can actually accomplish anything, as opposed to wasting $800 million in taxpayer money with nothing to show for it.

      Assuming they are telling the truth about 50+ plots being foiled, then another way to look at it is that it costs them around $16 million per foiled plot. That sounds like a big number but in light of September 11 that is comparitively cheap to the $100 billion plus finaincal impact.

      And just how were those 50+ plots foiled? Was anyone arrested? How is it that nowhere was it mentioned in any media that those arrests happened?

    10. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just how were those 50+ plots foiled? Was anyone arrested? How is it that nowhere was it mentioned in any media that those arrests happened?

      What makes you think they would have arrested anyone? There are drones flying in other countries that could take care of the job.

    11. Re:How did the government pull this off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon now, they spent the $800 million and *now* you know what it was *really* spent on.

      Think about it for a minute. What did the NSA just finish building to the tune of 1.2 Billion? Where do you think that money came from?

  24. Well that's damning... by wjcofkc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I'm sure if they would just show us the redacted slides, it would clear everything up... right?

    Seriously though, I kind of expected things to be this bad, and they may even be worse, but this really does add frightening perspective. If they release enough information about their systems, perhaps one day someone or some group will come up with a way to at least partially work against it, or at least muddy up the data they are collecting.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Well that's damning... by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      Odds are enough information has already been released that any analyst worth their paycheck already has a pretty good idea as to how most of the NSA systems work. I'd also be willing to be that most software engineers with a web background out there already have a pretty good idea how they are doing things. This is of course assuming that other people didn't already figure this out before hand.

      Plus, all of the NSA systems are apparently vunerable to the good old fashioned dead drop since they can't monitor non-electronic systems. That's also not exactly a secert to anyone either.

    2. Re:Well that's damning... by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they release enough information about their systems, perhaps one day someone or some group will come up with a way to at least partially work against it, or at least muddy up the data they are collecting.

      "Come up with a way"?

      How about burning all NSA buildings and other infrastructure to the ground, hanging any and all NSA personnel that can be found, and then move on to anyone in Congress and the Executive who supports/supported this shit?

      I figure that would make a good start.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:Well that's damning... by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      American spring? It could happen...

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    4. Re:Well that's damning... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      How about giving NASA the NSA's infrastructure, and offering the military dibs on a mass-driver if / when any other country becomes so troubling that they would need that kind of artillery (if you need to ask what a mass driver is, you're not allowed to be a part of this debate). Then tell NASA that if they don't have a colony on Venus, Mars, Titan, or Mercury before the decade is out, we're going to break down our cities, and live in mud huts, because it's obvious that we're never going to get those plasma fusion rockets to work correctly.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  25. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI try plugging in your middle initial and it gets really creepy from there.

  26. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They've already cop'd to mapping networks out to (n>2) degrees of contact. It's the "implicit authorization to track people networked to a suspect" that makes this all so dangerous.

    I'm not the first to refer to the lame "Kevin Bacon" jest.

  27. Rogers was not lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mike Rogers did not say that it wasn't possible for someone to eavesdrop from their desk, he was saying that official policy was not to do that (without the OK of a superior). I think he was fairly clear on that point. He's not saying that it's not technically feasible, just that NSA personnel are told that it's contrary to stated policy and are (officially) requested to comply. He didn't address whether the policy was enforced in any way or whether that sort of activity was audited - but then again, everyone was careful not to ask that question.

    1. Re:Rogers was not lying by xevioso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is false. He said, and I quote, ""He was lying, He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

      It turns out that he was in fact NOT lying, and Rogers WAS lying by saying Snowden was lying.

    2. Re:Rogers was not lying by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      This is false. He said, and I quote, ""He was lying, He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

      It turns out that he was in fact NOT lying, and Rogers WAS lying by saying Snowden was lying.

      Or Snowden might be exaggerating what the software could do because he wasn't actually authorized to use it (i.e. he drew conclusions based upon the training materials on SharePoint) and Rogers is downplaying how poor the security at the NSA actually is.

      If Snowden was a system administrator at the NSA then there would have been no reason for him to be using the tools that the intellegence analysts would have been using and I would like to think that he would not have had need to know to actually use the systems even if he had knowledge of them. So he likely was not in a position to be fully briefed about the actual capablities of the systems. Even if he was being truthful about being a "infrastructure analyst" (i.e. black hat) there still wouldn't have been much of a reason for him to the tools of an intellegence analyst.

  28. Maybe Not A Lie .. Exactly by Toad-san · · Score: 2

    Rep. Mike Rogers may not have been lying, exactly, with what he stated earlier. He may have been misinformed (e.g., lied to) by whoever briefed him on NSA's capabilities and available data. Which is not surprising, given the blatant lies and deception exhibited over and over again by the highest levels of NSA executives.

    1. Re:Maybe Not A Lie .. Exactly by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Rep. Mike Rogers may not have been lying, exactly, with what he stated earlier. He may have been misinformed (e.g., lied to) by whoever briefed him on NSA's capabilities and available data.

      OK, so either he's a liar or an idiot.

      Neither are terms of endearment, and both are terrifying when you consider how much power this jackass (and his 534 fellow jackasses) can wield.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  29. this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 0

    Hear me out. Snowden said he could wiretap you with just your email address.

    This doesn't amount to that. All this is is a large database. All the data they get they put into a database. That's how they use "big data".

    But you can only search for what's in there.

    What will be in there is metadata from the metadata drag net (pen register/trap and trace). This includes email from/to, etc, but not the content. It also includes phone call from and to numbers but not the content, although Snowden said email, so I guess he wasn't talking about that.

    Also in there will be the content of communications which were captured previously. This is what amounts to an actual wiretap. But they cannot capture these communications between Americans with a drag net, they have to get individual warrants (presumably secret FISA warrants).

    So, if you gave your email to Snowden, he could look up everything which is in there, but unless you were already wiretapped, he wouldn't find any wiretap info. If you are American, he cannot put on a wiretap just by you supplying your email address.

    So the original denials were correct. Snowden did overstate what he could do. He may not have been limited enough in what he could do, but this was not one of the things he could do.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by Holi · · Score: 2

      You seem to be under the impression that they do not have the content. There have been several reports from NSA Whistleblowers prior to Snowden that have come right out and said they have the ability and they do listen in on phone calls. Why you are believing an agency who consistently lies to the public is beyond me. The bill of rights id over, which means the Constitution is done. Our government has no authority beyond might anymore.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by Arker · · Score: 1

      There appears to be at minimum a 3 day buffer within which everyone and everything is effectively wiretapped.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am sorry but to suggest you are not already wiretapped strains credibility. There is only one reason to put storage on the order of 12 exabytes, which is what some estimates put the NSA planned Utah facility at. That reason is you are keeping payloads.

      I don't think you need anything close to 12 exabytes to keep all the meta data you could get your hands on for even decade time scales.

      Sorry given all the revelations lately, all the lies we have been told by the folks who say Snowden is lying and some back of the envelope estimates based on the little information i do know there is no reason I can see to accept of any public statements made by NSA. Credibility and trust are be earned; If the NSA wants to be believed its incumbent upon them to offer something better than "because we say so"; right now their critics are more credible than they are. Snowden has little to gain and everything, perhaps his life to loose doing what he did, Snowden has documentation that even if may be inadequate to fully support all his claims does offer proof the NSA dramatically exceeded its understood activities, and absolutely has mislead the public.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      this is just part of it... they can also add phone taps on people because they're connected to other people. there's no practical judical oversight in that if they believe that they're talking to outside of the country(even by proxy).

      point being that they're doing so many taps that the system for it is automatized heavily and even the pool of people who can add people to be authorized to add people must be quite high.

      the email and other info on db is just key to finding your phone and then they can add it to be tapped - they just need to ask some other dude that hey, "don't cha think someone from persia might call this number?".

      so, you have conditions under which you can just add people to be wiretapped at will and the only thing keeping them from putting the tap online is them.

      for example, you call me(I'm outside of USA) and boom you're free game to add to the list, no tape no nothing. just other intelligence pointing to that you might call me is enough.

      what's new is that they can do retroactively 3 days taps too.

      ultimately in principle there is no difference of course if the pool of people who can add wiretaps without questions or checks is 3 guys or if it's 30000, but judging from the taps that they bother to get warrants for the number is much more than 3000. that's the worrying part, not really that there is some guys who can add anyone to the tap. obama can order drones to kill guys so naturally president can order anything he want, but that there are scores of pretty random dudes who can add taps is the worrying part. there's going to be some guys who will sell wiretap data to chinese, who stalk their exes and all that nasty unfair ddr shit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Assuming the infrastructure is in place (which it is), a phone line can be tapped in about 30 seconds max via remote access, and then one can instantly start listening remotely.

      This is not to say that all lines are constantly tapped because they are not. But they will be capable of such in the next few years when all telephony traffic is going over VOIP.

      Snowden was not lying about this capability.

      All of the 'discussion' in D.C. regarding the telephony metadata is just a distraction, to keep the public from seeing the VOIP and Internet tap issue.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , but that there are scores of pretty random dudes who can add taps is the worrying part.
      there's going to be some guys who have the same mentality as J. Edgar Hoover had.

      FTFY.

    7. Re:this doesn't amount to wiretapping you by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      But they cannot capture these communications between Americans with a drag net, they have to get individual warrants (presumably secret FISA warrants).

      If you had actually seen the contents of this most recent leak you would have noticed that no warrants are necessary to perform a search of the database which includes the actual content of emails, IMs, and telephone conversation audio. Somehow you seemed to have missed the whole point of this leak. All of our worst fears about Big Brother have now been confirmed.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  30. Sounds Useful! by AdamStarks · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard the NSA has had trouble complying with a recent FOIA request, something about not being able to read their own emails. Someone should tell them about this "XKeyScore" thingamajig!

    1. Re:Sounds Useful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt there are filters on the front end of this thing to automatically exclude anything NSA originated from their database.

      Which is probably why they didn't notice what Snowden was up to.

  31. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How could you even implement a search unless you had a database that already contains scads of generic data to search through? If you could make a database consisting only of "suspects they're authorized to track", then you wouldn't have to search anything. You've already got the search results.

  32. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by intermodal · · Score: 2

    A database containing only suspects they are authorized to track would be worthless to them in the context they're trying to sell it. Every argument they have made makes it clear that they see it as searching for a needle in the haystack, and all of us, all of us, are the hay.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  33. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not exactly sure what they mean by a "strong-selector," and maybe someone can explain that, but it seems to me slide 15 implies they can look through large pools of data they've already collected to find targets. So it seems like they're gathering info about everyone they can.

  34. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That the data is collected has already been established, by more than one whistleblower. That's old news.

    The new revelation here is that a relatively low-level guy could easily search through the database looking for everything they want. That lapse in security is actually surprising, even if you have a low opinion of the NSA.

    From a legal perspective, it seems they are allowed to collect the data, but they can only look at it if authorized (ie, crtain requirements are met). What Snowden is saying is that the authorization method wasn't very robust, which means that someone somewhere probably has actually abused this to check up on his girlfriend or something.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  35. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

    'bout tree-fitty.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  36. Security Engineered Out by FellowConspirator · · Score: 1

    Why is it that nobody points to the obvious?... That this is evidence that the NSA (and US government) has intentionally undermined the security of all communications and computer systems. The global financial and communications infrastructure is wide open for anyone that has the key. Every power the NSA has, they have also granted to everyone else on the planet with the interest and means to wield it. They might say, "well, if someone could do that, then we'd know about it..." but I don't believe that it would be so obvious. If someone set up a trade in industrial trade secrets, or skimmed financial transactions properly, the world wouldn't be the wiser. Blackmail, extortion, ...

    1. Re:Security Engineered Out by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

      Because Occam's Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is that these leaked documents far overstate the capabilities of the NSA's surveillance program.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    2. Re:Security Engineered Out by jovius · · Score: 1

      It's a five year old document. It's more likely an understatement by now.

    3. Re:Security Engineered Out by Tim12s · · Score: 1

      Yeah,.... so they are overstated. Some Russian or Chinese government doesnt believe this and goes and builds the same. Now we have a situation where the original party must go far ahead to have some advantage, etc, etc. Its the cold war all over again.

      You know why this shyte works? ...Because I would do the same thing if it were my job. Probably slightly better too. Break it down into people that dont even know how the system is built. Setup some "fibre" companies and some managed service shell companies. Setup/host datacentres, etc. All easy to do. Setup contracts for these switching points over layered managed services companies that, over time, have their contracts validly swapped for erroneous ones, cut costs and switch when any one team gets too comfortable.

      All very easy to engineer over a 10 year period. Split regional teams and have one or/two military teams that run certain interception points within the company without any knowledge. Run datacentres and switching points from india where they are oblivious to the scheduling/tracking requirements.

      Who would run key interception points from a foreign company outsourced to manage 100 of these locally. They never meet the actual "subcontractors".

      Again,.... thats what I would do. Note: Any foreign company can do the same too. Across the US. There is no monopoly on this for the US. I am certain this is happening elsewhere. Hell - put your equipment in for a few days ("fibre cut" crew goes out fixes and splices accordingly) and take it out later leaving no trace.

  37. Chrome Incognito by skaralic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how much of an accident it is that Chrome's Incognito mode tells you:

    Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of:

    • Websites that collect or share information about you
    • Internet service providers or employers that track the pages you visit
    • Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smileys
    • Surveillance by secret agents
    • People standing behind you
  38. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    well.. it's only people they're authorized to track(EVERYONE OUTSIDE USA!) and then people with connections to them..

    soo.. yeah, figure it out.

    yes, I am aware that it is a bit of a hyperbole because they've only admitted to two levels of separation between persons of interests.. those being anyone with ties to iran, middle eastern groups, unwanted groups etc.

    besides, how the fuck do you think you add people to the system? that the judge reviews the data on the case, ponders and then the judge gives an authorization key that lets them add a contact? fuck no. you just add their addresses while making a single promise holding up your pinky that you "believe" you have rights to to add that tap. they don't have the manpower to go through every tap added.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  39. How do they get the data? by sageres · · Score: 1

    OK what I see is a raw TCP traffic that they are scanning and parsing for hosts, request types (get,post), header info (referrer), and content. So they are talking about any web site. So does it mean they have access to record every single piece of traffic passed through a major backbone? But than they have a server in Russia. And in China. Someone above mentioned that the servers could be inside of the embassies. Not exactly intelligence friendly countries. Does it mean they managed to put a sniffer on their hosts' networks backbone? HOW if they do not have a physical access to the major routers?

    1. Re:How do they get the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't assume that they don't have physical access. They probably did have it at some point in time.

    2. Re:How do they get the data? by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      A lot of the major internet backbone cable go through the United States or allied countries. If you and a tap on one of those it wouldn't be too hard to actually suck large percentages of the worlds daily telecommunications traffic. Some of the earlier slides that were released effectively implied that is exactly what they are going as well.

    3. Re:How do they get the data? by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

      the part of all this reporting that's weirdly missing is the implication (to my mind) of across the board compliance of every major telco, ISP, service providers, and software company around the globe. Not only is Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/Facebook mining your searches and scanning your emails to target advertising, but they are apparently actively assisting the NSA to do even more intensive sorting, storing, and mining of your activity.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    4. Re:How do they get the data? by psydeshow · · Score: 2

      HOW if they do not have a physical access to the major routers?

      1) Let's say you had a rootkit-like patch for a popular model of carrier-grade fiber optic switch. Now let's say that you control one or more key employees of an engineering company that installs carrier-grade networking equipment in various parts of the world. Gives it to universities for free. Operates popular chains of internet cafes.

      2) Let's say you deploy large numbers of compromised TOR routers in all of your embassies and consulates. Or as a botnet.

      3) Let's say you have a team of skilled malware writers that work on creating network sniffing botnets. Let's say the malware is also able to install a sniffer on several popular models of wi-fi access point, with known (and unknown) firmware issues, backdoors, or simply default passwords.

      4) Let's say you have massive arrays of wi-fi and cellular antennas installed in all of your embassies and consulates, and 60 years of experience isolating and processing signals from distant enemy transmitters.

      Those are four possible scenarios. I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with others.

      We all know that the Internet is inherently insecure, and that software is exploitable. Given enough storage to capture everything in real time so they can apply map-reduce to it, the NSA (and presumably other spy agencies) have their work cut out for them.

    5. Re:How do they get the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOW if they do not have a physical access to the major routers?

      You do remember that quite a few sea cables were damaged in the last years by unknown saboteurs? How many companies will be available by mere chance for installing emergency replacements? How many sea cables might have been tapped successfully without breaking them?

  40. Sorry /. AC, your really not when using http by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1
    Interesting:

    "The XKeyscore program also allows an analyst to learn the IP addresses of every person who visits any website the analyst specifies..."

    1. Re:Sorry /. AC, your really not when using http by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh oh. I dun goofed. I'm gonna get backtraced by the cyber police. Consequences will never be the same.

    2. Re:Sorry /. AC, your really not when using http by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I saw Mike Rogers on the Sunday news shows earlier this week, and I thought it was dead easy to tell he was lying.

      His lips were moving....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  41. I'm with the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm with the NSA and I'm posting as AC for obvious reasons.

    When you assume that they're always lying, they'll tell the truth, under the secure knowledge that you won't believe them.

    We always lie and I'm lying.

    Hey, it worked on Star Trek!

    1. Re:I'm with the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but my head was built with paradox-absorbing crumple zones

    2. Re:I'm with the NSA by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I'm with the NSA and I'm posting as AC for obvious reasons.

      When you assume that they're always lying, they'll tell the truth, under the secure knowledge that you won't believe them.

      We always lie and I'm lying.

      Hey, it worked on Star Trek!

      Unfortunately, this paradox is easy to sidestep: I reject your statement that you're with the NSA. Now the rest is irrelevant.

      Should have gone with the Princess Bride instead of Star Trek.

  42. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you tell a kid that it should not steal cookies and when it does you do nothing about it, it will assume that it is allowed to take the cookies. The longer you allow it, the harder it will be to enforce the rule.

    The defense of the parent could be anything from "Because I said so." to "My house, my rules."

    So who has told the NSA to stop it and what actions have been taken to punish them? If I were the NSA, I would assume that all I do is authorized, until somebody stops me.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  43. SMBC comic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  44. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A database containing only suspects they are authorized to track would be worthless to them in the context they're trying to sell it. Every argument they have made makes it clear that they see it as searching for a needle in the haystack, and all of us, all of us, are the hay.

    That is, until someone in some government somewhere decides you look more like a needle.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  45. Lies and more lies by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    How many more lies are we going to put up with until something is actually done?

    1. Re:Lies and more lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too late. You can't do anything, now. Too many people, too many vested interests, too many secrets. Everything is hidden, and everyone is going out of their way to hide even more. Nobody in power is interested in being honest with the public. You've lost, and now you're taking the rest of the world with you. Thanks for that.

  46. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by aitikin · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but you actually believe that they don't or are you just playing devil's advocate? Because frankly, the thought that they got authorizations to track all of these individuals that it would require, "Over 700 Servers"

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  47. So much for the MetaData myth by Squidlips · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too bad the media bought it hook, line, and sinker. They did not build the huge, Soviet-style Utah Data Center to store meta data...

    1. Re:So much for the MetaData myth by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      And recall the slashdot names pushing the Metadata myth and 'size' of the Utah Data Centre :)
      The telco system always belonged to ~ NSA, GCHQ (as different .mil/.gov groups) over time and now all your data 'layers' do too.
      All this was hinted at in books, magazines over the 1960,70,80,90's.
      What I always found interesting was the public/press rush for a 'gov key' to any US net encryption back in the early 1990's and then much less chatter/detail/press/.edu.
      Now we know why :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  48. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It turned out that bootlicker was the lochness monster!

  49. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by sjames · · Score: 2

    He did also show that they were snarfing up all call data on everyone. Gee, I wonder where they put that mass of data. If only there was some stable base platform for storing data....

  50. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. There is a reason they are called PUBLIC servants, and we are called PRIVATE citizens. Their actions are supposed to be public so that we can make sure they are representing our interests and vote accordingly. A representative democracy in which that is impossible is fundamentally broken, and one in which the privacy of all the private citizens is ignored, even more so.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  51. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by intermodal · · Score: 1

    You raise a very important point. It's more like they're looking for arbitrarily chosen pieces of hay, and all the pieces of hay that they suspect may in some way be related to that other hay. By their own arbitrary criteria, of course.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  52. Not fair! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which is not surprising, given the blatant lies and deception exhibited over and over again by the highest levels of NSA executives.

    You are being unfair to the NSA. Eric Holden, the Attorney General in office, is on record for more perjury before congress than any single NSA official. Once regarded as a felony (and officially still being labelled as that), perjury before congress has become an integral part of playing the representatives of the public, and those are being good sports about it. Nobody crying foul here.

  53. We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by Ultimate+Heretic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Found a little comment in the Austin,TX paper that is very appropriate to the NSA actions: "If we are to accept that the executive branch of the U.S. government is operating within the bounds of the Constitution in its implementation of the recently disclosed domestic spy program. i.e., having approval through the FISA court and tacit congressional consent, then per the 4th amendment, “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,” the only valid probable cause to surveil the entire domestic population is to declare them likely criminals. The question to answer then becomes, what do the citizens of this land do when their government has wholesale declared them all criminals?" So I put it to you, what is the correct course of action when we citizens of these United States of America are now all criminals in the eyes of the government?

    1. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by mwehle · · Score: 1

      So I put it to you, what is the correct course of action when we citizens of these United States of America are now all criminals in the eyes of the government?

      You mean when we are all outlaws in the eyes of America? In order to survive we steal, cheat, lie, forge, fuck, hide, and deal...

      --
      Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
    2. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by Ear+Phantom · · Score: 2

      Apparently (slides 15-16), anyone who uses encryption is automatically suspicious and will be recorded.

    3. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      shhhh....American Idol is just about to come on, can I answer this later on?

      I guess that means we have more in common with Australia then we thought....

      Homeless people can demand three squares a day or sue the Government for human rights violations...

      Perhaps ask the President why he thinks we are all criminals...oh wait, that would require reporters, we don't have them anymore

      Make a lawyer really really happy by hiring him or her to file a class action suit in civil court, oh damn, the lawyer is a criminal as well

      Wait, if the NSA was then collecting data on the President that makes him a criminal and thus could be impeached accept we just nullified Congress since they are all criminals...

      man what a mess.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    4. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found a little comment in the Austin,TX paper that is very appropriate to the NSA actions:

      "If we are to accept that the executive branch of the U.S. government is operating within the bounds of the Constitution in its implementation of the recently disclosed domestic spy program. i.e., having approval through the FISA court and tacit congressional consent, then per the 4th amendment, “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,” the only valid probable cause to surveil the entire domestic population is to declare them likely criminals. The question to answer then becomes, what do the citizens of this land do when their government has wholesale declared them all criminals?"

      So I put it to you, what is the correct course of action when we citizens of these United States of America are now all criminals in the eyes of the government?

      Probable cause doesn't make anyone a criminal for one thing.

      Second, wiretapping laws exist BECAUSE the 4th amendment doesn't protect you from eavesdropping in public spaces or on public communication networks.
      It's difficult to read "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." to mean protection from passive eavesdropping at all, much less when it's performed on someone else's communication infrastructure. Passive to you I mean, I assume a warrant was always needed to mess with AT&T's copper wires, it just didn't have to mention you.
      NOW, with wiretapping laws in mind, throw packet switched networks in the mix... people's privacy expectations are just getting bizarre. It's almost like people assume shouting in code in a public space grants 4th amendment protection from, I don't even know, either listening or comprehension depending who you ask.

      Third, always be more concerned with actions than intelligence. If you propose violence in the face of someone merely _knowing_ too much, what does that make you?

    5. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      So I put it to you, what is the correct course of action when we citizens of these United States of America are now all criminals in the eyes of the government?

      Criminals aren't allowed to vote. That should be left up to the rubber stamping party members. See where this is going? Trotsky is dead. News at 11:00.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    6. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      the only valid probable cause to surveil the entire domestic population is to declare them likely criminals

      One question. Does a CCTV camera on a busy street mean we are declaring everyone on that street a likely criminal? I would suggest that no, it doesn't. What it does is collect information that can be used once an actual criminal investigation is started. Similarly, if someone charges something to their credit card, a record is kept and the data is protected as "papers" according to the Forth Amendment. Does that mean the government has no right to that information if the person is the target of a wire fraud investigation? No.

      The point is, access to data is not the same thing as using it in a prosecution - see: Miranda Rights.

      Moreover, email is special because it a transient medium. In other words, there is currently no mandate for SMTP hosts to keep emails, and even if there were, would a terror cell operating their own servers respect such a mandate? Of course not. And because the only access the NSA has to such data is over public networks, it has no effective way to filter messages sent to/from just the threats. It would slow the process to a crawl and render it useless. A more effective system is to collect all the data in bulk and only look at the bits (literally) that matter. In this way the process can follow standard probable cause guidelines. Is there room for abuse? Yes. But is the risk any greater than giving the FBI access to every financial transaction going through every US bank? Certainly not.

    7. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously, we need to go visit DC, en mass, with ye olde pitchforks and torches, and register our opinion of how the country is currently being run. The US military is not going to touch a few million citizens who show up to 'chat' with their elected officials...not unless they want to see where that leads (somewhere dark, I imagine); as for the police, well, their presence will, in all probability, only ignite a wildfire that should end very badly for them...because these people are already believing that they have nothing left to lose, and they're right.

      Normally, the government would be fixed by kicking out the problems...but with public deficits reaching hideous levels, and personal income being taxed at a rather much higher rate than when this country was founded, that doesn't seem an option, now does it? You have the sons of senators, and grandsons of senators...being elected as senators...and the country is in shambles. Now, personally, I'd love to contribute more to this, really wish I had some solutions, but while people are protesting in DC, I plan to be on an island somewhere far away; I'm not a politician, will never run for office, and want some place quiet to enjoy a more peaceful life; but I figure that with or without this protest (those deficits / taxes will only climb as time goes on...at some point, income earned == income taxed), and that will make a very tired, skinny, and pissed people more than a little fed up with things.

      I could be wrong...maybe the US will suddenly win its war on corruption, turn the tide, and bring economic prosperity from on high. Maybe the reason that things are not doing so well is because this generation is so 'lazy,' and has nothing to do with the ridiculous spending of the previous generation, nor the out of control SS tax / benefits that no one believes will remain as is well into the future. Maybe not. Personally, I see the Titanic hitting an iceberg, well, has hit one...but people claim, despite losing their pensions in the market, that that's just a load of bull, that everything is fine. I just hope that we are not seeing an entire generation of humans beings sold into slavery...if there is anything moral to this universe, a weak premise I grant you, that would not end well.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      If you propose violence in the face of someone merely _knowing_ too much, what does that make you?

      A revolutionary? A freedom fighter? Someone willing to sacrifice their life in order to try to stop this slide into an Orwellian dystopia? Something like that I suppose.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    9. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean when we are all outlaws in the eyes of America? In order to survive we steal, cheat, lie, forge, fuck, hide, and deal...

      Sorry, no mod points. Excellent lyric from Volunteers / Jefferson Airplane!

    10. Re:We U.S. Citizens Are All Criminals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything I write or say is protected by copyright, which in essence means it is a property of mine. If it is theft to "steal" a digital copy of a DVD, it is theft to "steal" a digital copy of my email, right? Moreover, it would be a "paper or effect", and so clearly protected, right?

  54. Uhh.. by GigaBurglar · · Score: 2

    Not only are they spying on you - they also stole all you money a few years back.. remember? Pepperidge Farm remembers..

  55. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by wmac1 · · Score: 2

    Besides, there is no rule to prohibit surveillance of non-American or communications between non-American and an American.

  56. Surprisingly small setup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 700 servers in 2008? That is a very small setup for something pretending to be so massive.
    It seems they can't keep the data they collect for that long.

    With the possibility of multiple countries (US, AU, CAN, GBR + NZ) being involved you would think they could get their hands on more processing power than that.
    I call bullshit. I would take that document with a big dose of salt.

    This is propaganda. Don't buy into it.

    1. Re:Surprisingly small setup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The document is to vague to tell. 700 servers could be a closet of raspberry pis or 700 geographically diverse supercomputer clusters. Without specifics, 'server' means nothing.

  57. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new revelation here is that a relatively low-level guy could easily search through the database looking for everything they want. That lapse in security is actually surprising, even if you have a low opinion of the NSA.

    There was almost certainly a ton of oversight in what they were looking at. It just wasn't what any reasonable minded person would interpret as JUDICIAL oversight.

  58. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

    General "Buck" Turgidson: That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  59. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    If tomorrow you become a suspect, they will need to examine all your past data. So all the your data must be there, just in case. QED

    Addendum: unless you are out of trial by definition, like being a politician, some middle-to-high management level related to this and other government protegees, in that case your data probably is not there, and never will. Nobody watches the watchers.

  60. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Insightful
  61. Coherent Narrative? by caspy7 · · Score: 0

    We complain about how all the "sheeple" keep voting the idiots into power and then doing nothing as their freedoms erode, but if ignorance is a significant part of the problem, what are we doing to fix it?
    I don't always have the time or eloquence to lay out a compelling narrative with an overwhelming mountain of evidence to persuade my friends and relatives - and frankly, my memory sucks. So I'm wondering, is there compelling, noninflammatory collection of facts that I can point people to?
    The media isn't telling the story, so that leaves it to us.

  62. Re:Hope and change Obummer's way!! by Wookact · · Score: 2

    They have been doing this for years, blaming "Obummer" glosses over the fact that a very many number of people are infringing on constitutional rights.

  63. Slides read like advertising copy by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

    "No other system does this!" is repeated on practically every slide. This smells a lot like a sales pitch. Kinda like a private contractor trying to upsell a government agency. I am not saying that this isn't legit, but if a salesman tells you that their system does "unbelievable and unparalleled thing X" (ahem, decoding, storing, and indexing all VPN traffic around the world) he better have more than just a slide to prove it.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:Slides read like advertising copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No other system does this!" is repeated on practically every slide. This smells a lot like a sales pitch. Kinda like a private contractor trying to upsell a government agency. I am not saying that this isn't legit, but if a salesman tells you that their system does "unbelievable and unparalleled thing X" (ahem, decoding, storing, and indexing all VPN traffic around the world) he better have more than just a slide to prove it.

      Hey, but don't let that prevent anyone from reading between the lines with an electron microscope and plain making things up, cause if it sounds sales pitchy it's probably %110 true and we can found pretty lofty assumptions with it!

    2. Re:Slides read like advertising copy by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      You shills are getting desparate I see. Grasping at straws. Snowden wouldn't have sacrificed his life just to release fake slides.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  64. We don't mind this in fiction or search engines .. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Batman listened to everything through everyone's cellphones. Barrayaran Imperial Security monitors everything. BBC-America's MI5 (or Spooks, for original BBC wachers) seemed to be able to access every webcam ever made. Jack Ryan survives through signal intercepts.

    Google and Bing and Yahoo are scanning all your base all your time. How else can they find whatever you want whenever you want it?

    This is one of those things that seems like a good idea when applied to OTHER things and OTHER people. Search engines on the web? Of course, anybody putting something online *wants* it to be found. Fictional security agents hunting the bad guys hiding among the solid citizens? Of course, that's what we fictionally pay them for.

    For arguments' sake: How do you debug a problem? Probably trace everything and look for anomalies, right? So why be surprised that the NSA thought any different?

  65. Correct, but ... by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    We're starting to argue over semantics.

    The NSA clearly has a different definition of 'wiretap' than how Snowden used it, which is how they can argue 'no, we don't do that'. I assume that Snowden meant 'I can retrieve large amounts of data on you given your e-mail address' while to NSA it meant 'we can set up an individualized 100% reliable sniffer given your e-mail address'.

    Next, we should discuss what the definition of 'is' is.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  66. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm.. read the PDF - it's pretty clear this is something like a 3 day+ 'buffer' of all trackable internet metadata (e.g. connection logs, http requests), with application and site specific 'smart filters' to capture more on request

  67. Well played, NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'I, sitting at my desk,' said Snowden, could 'wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email.' U.S. officials vehemently denied this specific claim.

    They're vehemently denying that they can wiretap anyone that easily. Strictly speaking, running a database query is not wiretapping.

  68. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by jovius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry to inform you but it says so in the very document:

    "Rolling Buffer" of ~3 days of ALL unfiltered data seen by XKEYSCORE:
    - stores full-take data at the collection site - indexed by meta-data
    - over 500 servers distributed around the world

    Later:

    - we can use this traffic to detect anomalies which can lead us to intelligence by itself
    - E-mail Addresses, Extracted Files, Full Log, HTTP Parser, Phone Number, User Activity

    It appears they take all data and then use that to detect anomalies. It includes data on everyone, and from all of the data they try to pinpoint targets.

    Look for anomalous events
    - Someone whose language is out of place for the region they are in
    - Someone who is using encryption
    - Someone searching the web for suspicious stuff

    They have example tasks listed such as:

    - Show me all the encrypted word documents from Iran
    - Show me all PGP usage in Iran
    - Swow me all the VPN startups in country X, and give me the data so I can decrypt and discover the users
    - Show me all the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets containing MAC addresses coming out of Iraq so I can perform network mapping
    - Show me all th exploitable machines in country X
    - Show me all the word documents with references to IAEO [International Atomic Energy Organization?]
    - Show me all documents that reference Osama Bin Laden

  69. The last election by chevelleSS · · Score: 1

    Just think of the data mining that was done in the swing states last election. Is sending a taylored message to a specific subset of people which has a high probability of changing their voting position truly the democratic way of electing our officials? We're just sheep in swayed by parties to vote Democrat or Republican.

  70. Please call Rogers Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://mikerogers.house.gov/contact/

  71. Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by Blackdragonpkj · · Score: 1

    Full disclose here, I'm a security professional. I personally see a capability within these slides that the US needs to have and would be scared if we didn't. For me I have no expectation of privacy when on the Internet. The protocols were not designed for privacy they were designed for availability. All the meta data is in clear text all the connections are in clear text. Yes we can encrypt our payload but it's very difficult to mask were we are going. Even with a VPN it has to terminate somewhere and the traffic from that termination point would be available to be snooped. As almost all communication moves to the Internet how does a government with limited human resources investigate potential threats? Are we satisfied with after the fact response from our government? If this was in place and it stopped 9/11 would we be grateful for all the lives it has saved? Over 300 terrorists captured. It only took a handful to pull off 9/11. Does the government care if I look at something a little strange. Maybe, I'll be flagged and then an analyst will look into my traffic and see that there is nothing of major concern, move on to next suspicious activity. I ask slashdotter's what is the best way for a government to find threats to it's citizens in this digital age? Should the Internet be hands off for our government?

    1. Re:Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2

      but this was in place before and after 9-11. It didn't stop that, and it didn't stop the boston bombers. It only exists to be abused.

    2. Re:Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by Blackdragonpkj · · Score: 0

      To expect the program to be 100% effective considering the size of the Internet is not practical. I am sure NSA was able to get the UTAH data center by point out that we have this program but it's size and scope was just too small to have prevented 9/11. To say this only exists to be abused is a very black and white statement. By that way of thinking, government only exists to be abused. I think the capability is critical for the U.S. to have, but the laws that govern this capability have to be well defined and public. We don't necessarily need to know how the U.S. is doing this and what servers through out the world this system ties into.

    3. Re:Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      I personally see a capability within these slides that the US needs to have and would be scared if we didn't.

      Seriously? You'd be scared if the US government didn't have the ability to browse through the everyone's email contents for the last 3 days?

      Maybe you meant other capabilities. Maybe you meant the ability to have a deep search vs a shallow search on whatever data they happen to have. Maybe you're focusing on the technological capabilities that people would expect from an intelligence organization. Meanwhile, the rest of us are shitting our pants about how blatantly illegal this operation is.

      Yes. We'd generally assume that, with a warrant, from a real judge, who gave it because there was probable cause and all that jazz, with a record of who got what warrant to search for what and where, the investigators would be able to quickly get the email, phone, whatnot records from corporations about nefarious people. That's a good thing. It's legal. It helps catch the bad guy.

      For me I have no expectation of privacy when on the Internet.

      Own and carry a phone? You're always on the Internet.
      Likewise, do you have any "expectation of privacy" when you're on a restroom shitter? Those stall doors weren't REALLY designed for privacy. Anyone can stare at you through the cracks or duck their head under the stall. Creepy as hell, but do you think it should be illegal? Do you have an expectation of privacy while shitting? FYI, while email is sent in clear-text, you and I have an expectation of privacy with email... at least for 180 days per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.... huh... that's kinda disturbing.

      how does a government with limited human resources investigate potential threats?

      With a warrant. Not a dragnet. See: checks and balances.

      Over 300 terrorists captured

      Define terrorist. Do you mean those sheep they lead to slaughter by talking them into BECOMING terrorists and accepting fake bombs from undercover agents? Do you mean the Muslim charity that gave money to an organization who helped children, oh and also some terrorists drink from that well? It'd be nice if I could trust them when they claim 300 terrorists were captured thanks to this program, but they have redefined terrorism to the point I can no longer recognize it.

      I ask slashdotter's what is the best way for a government to find threats to it's citizens in this digital age?

      Find evidence, follow leads, GET A FUCKING WARRANT.

      Should the Internet be hands off for our government?
      False dichotomy. The government should not keep track of what everyone is doing on the Internet and allow unsupervised surveillance of the masses. Nor should the government ignore the Internet.

    4. Re:Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To expect the program to be 100% effective considering the size of the Internet is not practical. I am sure NSA was able to get the UTAH data center by point out that we have this program but it's size and scope was just too small to have prevented 9/11. To say this only exists to be abused is a very black and white statement. By that way of thinking, government only exists to be abused. I think the capability is critical for the U.S. to have, but the laws that govern this capability have to be well defined and public. We don't necessarily need to know how the U.S. is doing this and what servers through out the world this system ties into.

      Do you know what is meant by a "false positive"?

      I don't know how best to explain this, I think I'll resort to science fiction.

      You are Archibald Buttle. Are you feeling any safer now? His rôle in the film "Brazil" was rather short...

    5. Re:Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Should the Internet be hands off for our government?

      Of course. They've already mostly destroyed the internet as a means of communication. How can we communicate if we know that Big Brother is just over our shoulder looking for any hints of illegal activity of any kind? Of course they also tap phones. So the only form of communication that is still safe from routine government eavesdropping is meatspace person to person conversation. Putting audio/video bugs in every home would be expensive and very difficult to do without getting caught.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    6. Re:Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I ask slashdotter's what is the best way for a government to find threats to it's citizens in this digital age?

      Look in a mirror.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:Has Anyone actually looked at the slides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but this was in place before and after 9-11. It didn't stop that,

      The reason the program did not stop 9/11 is that 9/11 was done by the US government itself,
      in cooperation with a unit from the Mossad.

      The US government wanted ( needed ) a modern version of Pearl Harbor which would
      destroy the resistance of US citizens to the US entering into wars which the US had no
      valid reason to start. Each and every one of you US citizens has been played like a violin. The US
      government is the maestro, and you are merely pawns.

  72. CLI Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if this is 'XKeyScore', is there a command line version 'KeyScore'?

    1. Re:CLI Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if this is 'XKeyScore', is there a command line version 'KeyScore'?

      keyscore email=you@yourisp.tld

  73. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well.. it's only people they're authorized to track(EVERYONE OUTSIDE USA!) and then people with connections to them..

    You mean like, people sharing an IP address space with criminals and terrorists?

  74. USA = TERRORISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA is our common enemy.

    NSA should be attacked continuously by anyone skilled at this until everything it stores has been leaked causing worldwide outrage.

    NSA should be destroyed.

    NSA doesn't abide by international nor regional laws and conventions thus i declare myself at war with the NSA.

  75. The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't think that the revelations about the NSA are the only areas of secrecy.

  76. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Based on the example queries in the slideshow, you're assuming that things like "show me all spreadsheets sent from Iraq that contain MAC addresses", or "show me all exploitable machines in country X" only include data from people on some list? Wouldn't they have to first get the data in order to find out if it is even relevant to their list? If they already have the data, why not just store it? It may come in useful later, right? Don't worry though, they claim to have captured over 300 terrorists with information from this system. So all of our web searches, HTTP traffic, email addresses, phone numbers, files and documents, VPN traffic, VOIP traffic, Google Earth traffic, cookies, usernames, buddy lists etc are in their databases, but that's ok because they've captured over 300 terrorists.

    Go fuck yourself if you're going to defend this program, and scroll up to the top of the comments and read that quote from Bill Hicks.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  77. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Informative

    From a legal perspective, it seems they are allowed to collect the data, but they can only look at it if authorized (ie, crtain requirements are met). What Snowden is saying is that the authorization method wasn't very robust, which means that someone somewhere probably has actually abused this to check up on his girlfriend

    Tha's what I've been saying every story so far -- the "safeguards" are written process that people are supposed to follow. There is no uncorruptible logging going on, with MD5'd files shipping offsite to multiple storace sites; no alarms going off; no checks that servers don't have extra stuff installed.

    If a G. Gordon Liddy operative wanted to do a little political spying on the opposition, nobody would know. And it is exactly this issue, spying on opponents, that half the first 10 amenents exist, not to stop them from spying on hot chicks.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  78. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by compro01 · · Score: 1

    That is, until someone in some person in government somewhere decides you look more like a needle.

    Slight addendum. A person like, say, a vengeful ex?

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  79. Snowden has a big problem...no one cares. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I care...I really do. I find this latest revelation shocking and upsetting. But the people I talk to about the NSA including my parents, my spouse, and many others --don't care--. They don't care at all. "I'm not a terrorist, so I don't care if they are reading my emails." And in long discussions about why they should care, if not for themselves than for their children/grandchildren...I get nothing. It's terribly disappointing, and frankly I think even if they found out that the NSA had cameras in our living room, I still don't think they would care.

    Sort of like the environment or global warming...people, especially those of us in the comfortable middle-class, first world, truly can't be motivated to action unless they are directly affected by something.

    Mr Snowden I applaud you, and now unfortunately I pity you.

    1. Re:Snowden has a big problem...no one cares. by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This.

      Same boat here. Nobody cares, really. I say it jokingly - at least I used to - that as long as the average American gets their daily dose of the Kardashians (or whatever other entertainment they fancy), the NSA could install anal probes in their sofas and they wouldn't think once about it.

      Nobody I know really truly values their rights, or why we have them. "Who is King George?" is a question I get frequently in response to my explanations of the tyranny that brought this country to revolt.

      People really, truly don't care that their government is spying on them because they really, truly believe they are doing nothing wrong - when the average person commits several federal felonies every single day and is none the wiser about it.

  80. I hope he has/releases his XKeyScore records by turp182 · · Score: 1

    A very effective way to demonstrate the power of the system would have been, prior to his departure, to run the XKeyScore system on himself and then release that information at some point in the future. This would have shown the power of the system, and the fact that it can be used arbitrarily against anyone, US citizens included. Right there for all to see, his personal online activities and communications. It's not like he's still living that life anyway.

    I've given a couple of presentations on the vast amount of publicly available data that is available on everyone. To demonstrate, I used reports I purchased on myself from a couple of data aggregation providers. Eye-opening.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  81. Nothing wrong with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not as if they're trolling through private citizens' personal data looking for petty crimes. They're looking for known terrorists who are active threats against Americans.

    Besides, even if they were, if you don't have anything to hide, then there's nothing to worry about anyway. If you are the law-abiding citizens you claim you are, then you have nothing to fear from any of this. Uncle Sam is just trying to do his constitutional duty to protect the United States.

    1. Re:Nothing wrong with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are the law-abiding citizens you claim you are, then you have nothing to fear from any of this. Uncle Sam is just trying to do his constitutional duty to protect the United States.

      How naive are you? Imagine that instead of being a public leaker, Snowdon (or any number of other contractors with internal access) was friends with your ex -- and decided to cause you some problems. As has been established elsewhere, there are so many laws and regulations on the books that everyone is potentially a "criminal". Or maybe the problem isn't even overt, it's just some idiot that has mistaken your name for someone else with same/similar name and now you are in the crosshairs.

      Or were you being sarcastic? In which case I deserve a good Woooosh.

  82. Southern menace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how slide 6 shows the band of sites to defend against the Mighty Antarctic Threat.

  83. I'm having trouble seeing the problem by ipoverscsi · · Score: 1

    When I first got onto the Internet in the early 1990's, there were three things that were made quite clear to me when given my account:

    1. Don't put anything onto the Internet you wouldn't want seen on the front page of the New York Times; it will be available for all to see and it will never be deleted;
    2. The Internet is a public space and there is no expectation of privacy in public; and
    3. The packets that make up your communications are not letters but postcards -- anyone on the way between you and the destination can read everything.

    The NSA claims they are simply collecting Call Detail Records (CDRs) and packet headers, although likely more is being collected. But seeing CDRs and IP headers is no different than watching me when I'm walking around the street. Seeing the packets to my Google session is no different than knowing that I walked from my house to the nearest pizza shack. Everybody and anybody could see me do it, but it doesn't mean my privacy was violated -- I did all of these actions in public!

    People should not be surprised or upset that this information is available to be collected because that is the cost of using the Internet. You are intentionally sharing information with third-parties in the interest of obtaining a service. Even the snooping of email in GMail or Yahoo should not be surprising because you shared that information with a third-party (the service provider) and the provider has different legal requirements than if you simply shared that information directly and exclusively with your interlocutor.

    If you are upset about the Internet being public, then you should stop wasting your breath complaining about how what you thought was private is actually public and instead start advocating for the wide-spread use of encryption algorithms and always-on SSL. You should start advocating for the ability to run servers (mail and web) on residential connections so you don't have to share "private" information with third-party providers. You should advocate for rolling out IPv6 instead of being lazy and claiming that unencrypted NAT-ed IPv4 is good enough security.

    And when your done advocating, lead by example and use these technologies yourself.

    Just because you think something is private and secure doesn't mean that it is.

    1. Re:I'm having trouble seeing the problem by Nyder · · Score: 1

      When I first got onto the Internet in the early 1990's, there were three things that were made quite clear to me when given my account:

      1. Don't put anything onto the Internet you wouldn't want seen on the front page of the New York Times; it will be available for all to see and it will never be deleted;
      2. The Internet is a public space and there is no expectation of privacy in public; and
      3. The packets that make up your communications are not letters but postcards -- anyone on the way between you and
        the destination can read everything.

      The NSA claims they are simply collecting Call Detail Records (CDRs) and packet headers, although likely more is being collected. But seeing CDRs and IP headers is no different than watching me when I'm walking around the street. Seeing the packets to my Google session is no different than knowing that I walked from my house to the nearest pizza shack. Everybody and anybody could see me do it, but it doesn't mean my privacy was violated -- I did all of these actions in public!

      People should not be surprised or upset that this information is available to be collected because that is the cost of using the Internet. You are intentionally sharing information with third-parties in the interest of obtaining a service. Even the snooping of email in GMail or Yahoo should not be surprising because you shared that information with a third-party (the service provider) and the provider has different legal requirements than if you simply shared that information directly and exclusively with your interlocutor.

      If you are upset about the Internet being public, then you should stop wasting your breath complaining about how what you thought was private is actually public and instead start advocating for the wide-spread use of encryption algorithms and always-on SSL. You should start advocating for the ability to run servers (mail and web) on residential connections so you don't have to share "private" information with third-party providers. You should advocate for rolling out IPv6 instead of being lazy and claiming that unencrypted NAT-ed IPv4 is good enough security.

      And when your done advocating, lead by example and use these technologies yourself.

      Just because you think something is private and secure doesn't mean that it is.

      The NSA is in control of this database. The NSA has been lying under oath about it's existance. The NSA has been lying under oath about the capabilties of what they could do. Snowden should us that not only the NSA is lying to us, but that security access to the database is very bad, as low level employees can copy data from it to take with them.

      Currently, this db is being abused and lied about. Which usually means some people are using it to do some bad things and don't want you to find out about them.

      This is about the "land of the free and the brave" and our constitution. This is about holding our government accountable for it's actions.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:I'm having trouble seeing the problem by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I disagree that internet communication is public. There is an expectation of privacy. Just because the government can monitor every internet communication doesn't mean they should. Besides, it isn't only internet communication that they are monitoring. They also monitor telephone calls. Probably the only reason they don't monitor room audio from our homes is that it is just too expensive to plant and monitor all those bugs. What they are doing is abusive and wrong. Human beings require at least some privacy. It is a basic human need that the NSA seems intent on stomping out of existence. I'd like to find the address of every NSA employee and plant audio and video bugs in every room of their home and upload it all to the internet so that they could know what it feels like to be constantly monitored and observed.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  84. Just repeal the 4th amendment by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    Why keep this in the shadows and create all this controversy. If the American public wants this, then just repeal the 4th amendment and have at it. No one would be at all surprised to learn that China monitors all electronic communication, they have made no promises not to.

    Now if there aren't enough votes to repeal the 4th amendment, maybe, this isn't what the public wants.

    1. Re:Just repeal the 4th amendment by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The Founders made it hard to amend the Constitution.

      Maybe a bit of ego there, but events seem to be indicating that they were right about this, like they were about most everything else.

      I just wish they enumerated a few more of these natural rights. Jefferson, for example campaigned for Habeus Corpus being added to the Bill of Rights. Funny how he was right about that.

    2. Re:Just repeal the 4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jefferson, for example campaigned for Habeus Corpus being added to the Bill of Rights.

      [citation needed}. According to Wiki, there's no need for it in the Bill of Rights because it's already in the Constitution:

      Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

      Thus, Lincoln's suspension of habeas though controversial, seems Constitutional. Since then I'm hard pressed to think of anything the meets the standard of a rebellion or invasion. A few random terrorist acts, IMHO, don't rise to that standard.

      Putting things in the Constitution or B of R is nice... if people pay attention to the documents...

    3. Re:Just repeal the 4th amendment by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      "The general voice from north to south... calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:96

  85. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nor should there be. Ever.

  86. Why exactly are we shocked ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't we nerds have to blame ourselves ?

    So.. every slashdot reader knows that every mail, every facebook posting, every twitter fart, everything you do on the internet travels in the clear through anyone's server. Moreover, we "store" our live's data (email, photos) for free at providers we KNOW sell our data to anyone who is paying.

    How exactly is what NSA doing different from what Facebook is doing or Google, or DoubleClick or any other add company ? These companies promise us they only reveal aggregate data,not details ? Really ? Any of these providers can change their terms and conditions at any time and maybe we will find out and, no, we will never be able to delete stuff we already have posted if we don't agree with the new terms. We can throw a tizzy and "close our account" but really no account can ever be closed, it will still count towards the member count the providers show to their investors.

    Having the gubment change the rules for the NSA or any other government organization does not begin to address the real issue.

    The real issue is that we, the internet users never cared one little bit about our privacy, we KNOW everything we do on the net is visible to anyone who cares and we also know that stuff will never go away.
    It is not exactly that the NSA (as we know off) hacks into our computers and steals our data, they simply care to collect the huge trail of litter we leave behind us wherever we go.
    It is as if we open all our mail and scatter it around town, can't exactly blame anyone for reading and/or collecting it now can't we ?

    1. Re:Why exactly are we shocked ? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      we KNOW everything we do on the net is visible to anyone who cares

      Just like in the real world there are forms of communication that don't involve any expectation of privacy and forms of communication that do have an expectation of privacy. Email, IM, and Skype are some examples that did have an expectation of privacy. Obviously not anymore. Facebook has very little expectation of privacy which is one reason I don't have a Facebook page. We always used to joke that it was actually founded and run by the NSA or FBI. That turned out to be more true than we realized. I don't think Twitter has any expectation of privacy. And web forums are the equivalent of billboards. I have no problem with the NSA reading this post. It is intended to be a form of public communication. I do have a problem with them reading my emails or IMs. That is intended as private communication and just because it is trivial for them to monitor and record does not make it moral or legal to do so.

      As for defending our privacy against government intrusion, we should definitely attempt to do so. I'm not sure if it is practical or possible at this point, but we should at least try some technological solutions. Nevertheless it is important to keep in mind what is right and what is wrong. A government that spies on its own citizens is an important component of tyranny. The first step to controlling all of your citizen-slaves is to monitor everything they say and do.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  87. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the assertion.

  88. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should be if there is no reason to believe they present danger to us; anything else is just cowardly warmongering.

  89. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by wmac1 · · Score: 1

    Spying could be interpreted as act of war ... you know

    You cannot just spy on countries and do not expect consequences.

  90. They want one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jew World Order - the absolute power like the Kim family in North Korea, combined with the technology and the military strength of the USA.

  91. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Mathinker · · Score: 2

    > people sharing an IP address space with criminals and terrorists?

    Possibly, if the space you meant was 0.0.0.0/32 .

    Be real, it's probably everyone connected by having sent email to each other, posted on the same threads in any forum, or even possibly just visited the same URL even at different times. Or connected to a connection (by the same criteria). Etc.

  92. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It runs lotus notes...

    don't ask me how I know this :)

  93. The root lies in the U.S. educational system by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    It has been intentionally dumb down over the decades, as the elite ruling class knows, the more knowledgeable a person has, the more dangerous (to the elites) this person will become.

  94. this is why we don't have names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Harry Tuttle, Heating Engineer will fix it!

  95. Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they ever use this information to troll people. Like, if a subject visited a certain site they could all go there and mess with his head.

  96. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Nor should there be. Ever.

    I see, you don't believe in human rights, only in American rights.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  97. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by spleendamage · · Score: 1

    buck 'o five

  98. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Someone in some person?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  99. The Truth, More Lies, It's Irrelevant. by WhatHump · · Score: 2

    Ever since Edward Snowden went public, I have been racking my brain trying to conceive of a catastrophic event involving government surveillance that would motivate a large number of people to march on Washington chanting "Enough!" Say the words "Social security reform" out loud and retirees start boarding buses bound for the capitol. Suggest that limits on gun ownership should be put in place and the NRA is on your doorstep. Point out that the NSA is building a massive repository of every aspect of your very being...and people shrug. They just don't see the value of and power of personal or private information. It's too nebulous a concept for the average person to grasp, and no amount of public awareness is going to help. And those running the program and collecting the data sure as hell aren't going to give up their valuable and powerful tools, no matter how embarrassing it is when they're called out in public. Quite the opposite: they want more tools and they want them yesterday, and they don't want to be told what they can and can't do with them, especially when are busy protecting us from the bogeyman. Very few of us - Mr. Snowden et al - are willing to stop and consider why this is wrong. So does anyone have any ideas of what it will take to turn this indifference into outrage? Or will it take a full-scale and bloody revolution to stop us from being dragged down that path to hell that is paved with good intentions?

    --
    "Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
    1. Re:The Truth, More Lies, It's Irrelevant. by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      If only there were a "part 2" 30 years after Apple's original "1984" commercial.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  100. Chill people by ubermiester · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand that at first glance this looks like overreach, and depending on who had access and how often it was used, perhaps it is. But the NSA does not do law enforcement, they do threat detection.

    Imposing a suspicion-based, after-the-fact scheme would mean terror cells could (and probably already do) host their own encrypted SMTP servers with no archive, thus thwarting any attempt to trace messages sent before a target is identified. So even if a judge finds probable cause and some kind of targeted hack/trace could be established, it would be too late to look at data created before the warrant was issued. Why would we hobble our first line of defense against real, plausible threats in order to avoid theoretical abuses? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the programs intact and ensure safeguards against abuse?

    Even if you are afraid of some hypothetical future fascist regime that has plans to abuse this apparatus on a large scale, please explain why such a regime would have any interest in respecting the Constitution at all? In other words, if things got so bad that the NSA started spying on you because you wrote something to a friend they didn't like, citing the lack of a warrant is not going to help.

    Of course there are many (actually just some, but they like to think they are many) who believe the US is already some kind of fascist state, but I would suggest you talk to people living in places like Russia or China before establishing a "Big Brother" standard against which to compare the US.

    As for the legality, IANAL, but some obvious observations:

    • - The Constitution protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. It does not protect non-citizens.
    • - Collecting data is not the same thing as using it in a prosecution. See: Miranda Rights
    • - According to this leak (and common sense when you consider the sheer volume of data we're talking about), the NSA is not keeping this information for more than a few days. That means they are effectively creating a buffered cache of information that can be accessed quickly when necessary. This is akin to local law enforcement keeping CCTV video around for a short period of time for post-crime analysis (see: Boston Marathon bombing). If we're worried about them keeping this information for longer than they need it, put a law in place that restricts it - although I would suggest that it is physically impossible to keep up with all the data generated on the web.
    • - The NSA claims that there are multiple fail-safes in place to prevent unauthorized access - most likely including access logs, credential checks, etc - similar to the ones used by the FBI, local police, etc. This could of course be partially or completely false, and the NSA does not exactly deserve our unwavering trust at the moment. But assuming for a second that it is true, why exactly is this any different than giving certain analysts access to satellite imagery or CCTV cameras?

    We need to protect ourselves against government overreach and abuse - we are after all a nation of laws, not men. But the notion that the NSA keeping a few days worth of 1s and 0s just in case they are needed is anathema to our way of life is ludicrous. We keep medical, criminal, travel, financial and many other records for years and years. Why is this any different except that its a convenient vector of attack against an arm of government that is charged with doing exactly what XKeyScore is designed to do - seek out and neutralize threats to national security.

    1. Re:Chill people by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I understand that at first glance this looks like overreach, and depending on who had access and how often it was used, perhaps it is. But the NSA does not do law enforcement, they do threat detection.

      Imposing a suspicion-based, after-the-fact scheme would mean terror cells could (and probably already do) host their own encrypted SMTP servers with no archive, thus thwarting any attempt to trace messages sent before a target is identified. So even if a judge finds probable cause and some kind of targeted hack/trace could be established, it would be too late to look at data created before the warrant was issued. Why would we hobble our first line of defense against real, plausible threats in order to avoid theoretical abuses? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the programs intact and ensure safeguards against abuse?

      Even if you are afraid of some hypothetical future fascist regime that has plans to abuse this apparatus on a large scale, please explain why such a regime would have any interest in respecting the Constitution at all? In other words, if things got so bad that the NSA started spying on you because you wrote something to a friend they didn't like, citing the lack of a warrant is not going to help.

      Of course there are many (actually just some, but they like to think they are many) who believe the US is already some kind of fascist state, but I would suggest you talk to people living in places like Russia or China before establishing a "Big Brother" standard against which to compare the US.

      As for the legality, IANAL, but some obvious observations:

      • - The Constitution protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. It does not protect non-citizens.
      • - Collecting data is not the same thing as using it in a prosecution. See: Miranda Rights
      • - According to this leak (and common sense when you consider the sheer volume of data we're talking about), the NSA is not keeping this information for more than a few days. That means they are effectively creating a buffered cache of information that can be accessed quickly when necessary. This is akin to local law enforcement keeping CCTV video around for a short period of time for post-crime analysis (see: Boston Marathon bombing). If we're worried about them keeping this information for longer than they need it, put a law in place that restricts it - although I would suggest that it is physically impossible to keep up with all the data generated on the web.
      • - The NSA claims that there are multiple fail-safes in place to prevent unauthorized access - most likely including access logs, credential checks, etc - similar to the ones used by the FBI, local police, etc. This could of course be partially or completely false, and the NSA does not exactly deserve our unwavering trust at the moment. But assuming for a second that it is true, why exactly is this any different than giving certain analysts access to satellite imagery or CCTV cameras?

      We need to protect ourselves against government overreach and abuse - we are after all a nation of laws, not men. But the notion that the NSA keeping a few days worth of 1s and 0s just in case they are needed is anathema to our way of life is ludicrous. We keep medical, criminal, travel, financial and many other records for years and years. Why is this any different except that its a convenient vector of attack against an arm of government that is charged with doing exactly what XKeyScore is designed to do - seek out and neutralize threats to national security.

      Did this great system tell them that the Boston Marathon was going to be bombed? No, it didn't. It should have, after all, that was what it is for. But it and the NSA have failed miserably. The NSA has been lying under oath to the American People. They can not be trusted with a DB like this. And the fact that a low level employee could walk out with copies of their data only shows how incompetent they are.

      As much as I'd love to see this database d

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:Chill people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did this great system tell them that the Boston Marathon was going to be bombed? No, it didn't. It should have, after all, that was what it is for. But it and the NSA have failed miserably.

      doesn't it strike you as somewhat interesting/relevant that one of the boston bombers was a naturalized US citizen; the other a permanent resident? Maybe you (and countless others uttering similar stupidities) are barking at the wrong tree...

    3. Re:Chill people by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I understand that at first glance this looks like overreach

      It is far worse than that. It is our worst dystopian nightmares made real. It is 1984 in 2013. Our government is behaving in a way that is indistinguishable from the very worst surveillance police states.

      But the NSA does not do law enforcement, they do threat detection.

      I see. So the terrorist suspects they find don't have anything to worry about do they? Since all they do is detection. If you or I get caught in their dragnet we won't have anything to worry about either because they just do detection. Thank you for explaining that. And here I thought the government could actually do something with their information. Silly me.

      Imposing a suspicion-based, after-the-fact scheme

      In other words treating people as criminals only after they have done something suspicious.

      would mean terror cells could (and probably already do) host their own encrypted SMTP servers with no archive, thus thwarting any attempt to trace messages sent before a target is identified.

      Good. Stopping one or two suicide bombers every decade is not worth giving up our privacy from government intrusion. If I had to decide between the terrorists and the NSA I'd choose the terrorists. They are far less harmful to us than than the NSA. So fuck Big Brother and fuck you.

      So even if a judge finds probable cause and some kind of targeted hack/trace could be established, it would be too late to look at data created before the warrant was issued. Why would we hobble our first line of defense against real, plausible threats in order to avoid theoretical abuses?

      Because freedom from tyranny requires it. Once the government itself becomes the true enemy of its people then I for one will be cheering for the terrorists. Let them blow up the white house and the pentagon. I'd vote for whoever did it.

      Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the programs intact and ensure safeguards against abuse?

      Abuse is their SOP. Abuse is what they do. I don't think it is realistic to believe that the NSA will ever give up the universal surveillance system they have created. The only way to stop them would be to get rid of the NSA entirely or at least disable it during times of peace.

      It wouldn't surprise me if the NSA had a timeline that included every aspect of surveillance that Orwell wrote about in his novel. Monitoring all online forms of communication and cell phones and landlines is just a start.

      Of course there are many (actually just some, but they like to think they are many) who believe the US is already some kind of fascist state, but I would suggest you talk to people living in places like Russia or China before establishing a "Big Brother" standard against which to compare the US.

      I have lived in Cuba, and I still think the US is somewhat fascist and things are accelerating in a nonlinear fashion toward complete totalitarianism. These new revelations about our 1984-ish surrveillance state is even more evidence that this is so.

      The Constitution protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. It does not protect non-citizens.

      Please point out the relevant section of the constitution where it states that only American citizens have human rights and that the US government is free to enslave or murder or otherwise mistreat any non-US citizen simply because they weren't born here. I'll wait.

      According to this leak (and common sense when you consider the sheer volume of data we're talking about), the NSA is not keeping this information for more than a few days.

      That may have been true when those slides were first made (something like 5 years ago?), but it is unlikely to be true now. And when that Utah Data Center goes online this September it will add exabyt

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:Chill people by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      Did this great system tell them that the Boston Marathon was going to be bombed? No, it didn't. It should have, after all, that was what it is for. But it and the NSA have failed miserably.

      So they should just stop trying? There is no doubt such a system is an effective intelligence tool or they would not use it and no one would even be afraid of it. A single failure does not justify scrapping what is otherwise a very effective system. Even if they're only telling the truth about 10% of the threats they claim to have thwarted, that's 30 terror plots that would have otherwise been successful. And perhaps even more to the point, it surely slows down the development of a plot when those involved must go to such great lengths to avoid detection.

      Because right now it's being abused.

      According to whom? Snowden? What evidence has he presented? He has exposed the existence and some portion of the nature of these programs, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it is being abused in any systematic way - or even by any individuals. He has made various claims about what he could have done, but does that mean he could have done it and gotten away with it? No. There are surely abuses of every such system and oversight is necessary, but claiming that it is being abused without evidence sounds a lot like what Daryl Issa is trying to do. Which brings me to...

      And if you don't believe that, remember that the IRS targeted "by accident" various political groups recently.

      You're kidding right? Read this or this or this and any number of other reports about the fact that the IRS targeted any group claiming tax-exempt status in the months leading up to the election. The whole "keyword" fracas turned out to be a wash as they targeted just as many if not more progressive groups as tea party groups. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone in Washington had anything to do with the Cincinnati office and their unfortunate use of keywords in group names to filter the thousands of PACs requesting exemptions. Why do you think no one cares anymore but Fox? And even they dont talk much about it anymore. The GOP in general has disavowed it and not even the leadership thinks that dog will hunt.

      This database, as it stands now, is only being used for abuse, and/or for monetary/political gains by people with access to it.

      Where exactly are you getting this ridiculous nonsense? The Weekly World News? The Enquirer? Oh, must be Newsmax. Did you see the one about Obama being an alien? (Not the foreign kind...like from space).

    5. Re:Chill people by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      It is our worst dystopian nightmares made real. It is 1984 in 2013. Our government is behaving in a way that is indistinguishable from the very worst surveillance police states.

      Wow, that is some serious hyperbole. Have you actually read 1984? Do you have any idea what it means to live in a totalitarian state like Soviet Russia or even modern China? A police state actually arrests people for what they say. Have you or anyone you know or even read about been arrested for what they've said to anyone anywhere? Even Manning was not arrested for saying something and Snowden is not being chased because of his opinions about the NSA. They were arrested for leaking state secrets - a fact which even they do not dispute.

      In Soviet Russia (and even to some degree contemporary Russia), people are arrested for simply speaking out against the government. In China, people are regularly sent to forced labor camps for their political opinions and even their religious affiliation.

      If you or I get caught in their dragnet we won't have anything to worry about either because they just do detection

      What dragnet? They have no jurisdiction over citizens, and I dare you to find any evidence of anything more than people falsely put on a watch list (which is not maintained by the NSA, but by the DHS). Please provide evidence of these mythical dragnets. And again I emphasize the fact that were the US government to go fascist and actually start rounding people up a la USSR, the constitution and the courts would not help. The NSA is a tool of government, not the government itself. As long as we are vigilant in our oversight - and I stress that I think more oversight and transparency is necessary - we have little to be concerned about.

      You are insulting and diminishing the struggles of people in China, Saudia Arabia, Iran, N. Korea, etc etc by claiming that life is the US is even remotely the same as life in those places. It's like saying that the cops busting you for beer in the park is the same thing as people in the south being beaten for speaking out against segregation.

      In other words treating people as criminals only after they have done something suspicious.

      Actually the definition of a criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime, so the simple act of surveilling someone does not make them a criminal. But that is just you being a bit confused. My original point was that the idea that no information about a person should be collected until after they have been made the target of an investigation would mean that phone, financial and other transactional records would no longer be kept any longer than the organizations who generate them deem it necessary. Such record keeping is expensive, and there would undoubtedly be cases where actual criminal activity would go unpunished for lack of evidence. Consider the Swiss banks. Do you imagine that their habit of keeping records secret is based on some principle of privacy? No, it is based on the fact that people all over the world are willing to pay a premium to keep their money somewhere that legitimate law enforcement investigations cannot get to them.

      Again, the NSA is an intel gathering organization that is charged with determining threats before they occur. Not charging people with crimes after they happen.

      Good. Stopping one or two suicide bombers every decade is not worth giving up our privacy from government intrusion. If I had to decide between the terrorists and the NSA I'd choose the terrorists. They are far less harmful to us than than the NSA.

      First of all, what makes you think it was "one or two suicide bombers"? Do you have evidence for this? Because the NSA is claiming that they have thwarted more than 300 plots with these programs. They may not possess the unfaltering trust of the people at the moment, but even if that's 10x the actual number, 30 attacks over the past

  101. Fuck I hate Websites like that. by Nyder · · Score: 1

    You unblock guadian with noscript, but then you have a list of 20+ other sites and no idea which one leads you to the article. I wanted to see the slides, but fuck it, I don't want to keep guessing on which sites to unblock.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Fuck I hate Websites like that. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Hmm? I am running noscript and dont have anything else on that page allowed but their own domain. Not even googleapis, and it is working fine for me.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:Fuck I hate Websites like that. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Hmm? I am running noscript and dont have anything else on that page allowed but their own domain. Not even googleapis, and it is working fine for me.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation

      talking about this link, ya, a further up link had the pages in smaller form.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:Fuck I hate Websites like that. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Hmm you are right I cant get anything but a blank page there. The Guardian you would expect to be a little more sane in their architecture right now.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  102. It's all drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it funny that no one is believing the officials, congressmen, etc...but they believe an IT specialist who has documents and slides that can easily be manipulated and changed to say whatever he wants. I think I'll publish my own stuff and slap a bunch of official labels on it and then flee to Russia.

    So we're going to believe one man who claims to be doing everything for freedom and the american way, but he's seeking asylum in countries that have pretty shaky human rights records? America, you are a bunch of morons! Don't believe Snowden and don't believe your government. Just scrap the whole thing and make something you can all agree with!!1 What's that? You can't agree on the basic necessities for living in the modern world? Morons!

  103. Re:We don't mind this in fiction or search engines by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Batman listened to everything through everyone's cellphones. Barrayaran Imperial Security monitors everything. BBC-America's MI5 (or Spooks, for original BBC wachers) seemed to be able to access every webcam ever made. Jack Ryan survives through signal intercepts.

    Google and Bing and Yahoo are scanning all your base all your time. How else can they find whatever you want whenever you want it?

    This is one of those things that seems like a good idea when applied to OTHER things and OTHER people. Search engines on the web? Of course, anybody putting something online *wants* it to be found. Fictional security agents hunting the bad guys hiding among the solid citizens? Of course, that's what we fictionally pay them for.

    For arguments' sake: How do you debug a problem? Probably trace everything and look for anomalies, right? So why be surprised that the NSA thought any different?

    Okay, the first shit was movies dude. Movies. Not reality. Yes, Google, yahoo & MS have search engines, they search the internet for data. They track our online movement to make money off us. Does MS & Yahoo scan my Gmail email account? No. They don't. Does Gmail scan my emails? I do not know, and I do not care. See, I understand that the internet isn't safe. That gmail has access to my gmail account. If i really wanted to send info I didn't want others to read, I'd encrypt it first. Probably like most any fucking terrorist would do, because it puts a layer of security on your email that YOU control.

    The NSA has been compiling a database on everyone. Forcing corporations to give up security keys, open holes in the system, etc to get info about everyone in the world. While claiming it wasn't. Not only was this done on tax payers money, it was done in secret, while we were being lied to about it. It is a system that is being abused, and will continue to be abused unless we do something about it.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  104. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Arker · · Score: 1

    "The new revelation here is that a relatively low-level guy could easily search through the database looking for everything they want. That lapse in security is actually surprising, even if you have a low opinion of the NSA."

    It's not really surprising at all, without any particularly negative opinion of the agency involved beyond expecting that they are more concerned with the tasks immediately before them than with the legality of what they are doing and the long term affects on the republic. This is negative, yes, but it hardly applies to them, in this they and the rest of the government unfortunately mirror a large portion of the public.

    Any sort of security or accountability layers here would be seen as needless mickey-mouse nonsense getting in the way of them doing their jobs. And that's exactly why our founding fathers were far-sighted in denying the government the authority to run this sort of operation in the first place. The power to snoop like this is simply too much power for any individual or institution to be trusted with. Power corrupts.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  105. Re:We don't mind this in fiction or search engines by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Dude - I *agree* with you. I think the lying bastards are just DOING THEIR JOBS defined by the conservative congressmen who WROTE the Patriot Act and pooh-poohed the worries and objections at the time, and who are now claiming to be offended since the president is of the other party.

    I realize those are movies and TV shows and books. My title did include the word "fiction", right? Then the idea creeps closer with search engines, until finally someone is reading my diary over my shoulder. It's frighteningly easy for this stuff to go from "1984" fiction to current fiction to reality.

  106. How much does it take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for people to realise that the Government is lying to you!

  107. It's not an accident at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as I remember every time I use it: It disables ALL extensions, meaning they have javascript access to your 'incognito' client while you're using it, if for example you run Notscripts.

    Not everyone at google needs to be evil... just the ones setting policy.... (Gee, where else does that sound like....)

  108. Re:Spoken perfectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would mod it up from the Bill Hicks quote, I do not have any..

    Why is it others make this argument and get modded down others make the same comments and get modded up? /. is just as backwards as our moron politicians. So something /.ers can spot out from someone famous get everyone ogling. No wonder the country is fucked.

  109. Maybe they're scared of the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA, like any police force, is going to be full of evil people. Some decent people as well, but probably more of them are downright evil. And being evil, they don't have morals that get in the way of getting promoted.

    Now if an evil person has the ability to tap the President's email and find enough dirt to blackmail them, why wouldn't they?

    I moderated this topic hard, so posting as AC.

  110. intelligence from the Internet. by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    intelligence from the Internet.

    If I was looking for intelligence, the internet is the last place I would look.

  111. Don't forget the Birthday Paradox by hazeii · · Score: 1

    ...no need to go to any further degrees, as it's not just one subject (i.e. everyone, not just KB) the birthday paradox means they get 100% coverage.

    --
    All your ghosts are just false positives.
  112. Mike Rogers again.. ugh by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

    If you remember, Mike Rogers was trying to push through CISPA. I think the signs of this were out there, long before the SOPA / PIPA debates.

  113. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by balbus000 · · Score: 1
    Page 15:

    • How do I find a cell of terrorists that has no connection to known strong-selectors?
    • Answer: Look for anomalous events
    • E.g. Someone whose language is out of place for the region they are in
    • Someone who is using encryption
    • Someone searching the web for suspicious stuff
  114. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It takes some serious cognative dissonence to assume you are OK to do something on one hand, but do everything in your power to prevent people who might be able to stop you from knowing you are doing it on the other.

  115. Dissenters are traitors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really are a shill aren't you? I mean, you actually work for the NSA or some part of public relations responsible for defending them online. This sounds like it comes right out of some internal propaganda sheet. Traitor.

    Ignoring the slander for a moment, I would suggest that you reconsider calling anyone who disagrees with your assessment of the situation a traitor. That is exactly what 1984 and a totalitarian state is all about. I find it quite amusing that your big finish involves claims of disloyalty to your cause and accusations of commiserating with the "enemy". You sir are the type of person who the average citizen should be concerned about. You are the definition of a zealot who considers opinion as fact, speculation as truth, and evidence as lies. What was the motto of the Oceanic government? Oh right, it was: Ignorance is strength.

    For what it's worth, ubermiester, great rebuttals. I've enjoyed reading them. Also, I hope you don't feel too bad. This seems to be a common theme with this guy, and the irony is utterly lost on him.

  116. Yakov Smirnoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet America, the internet searches you!

  117. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should that be /0 ?

  118. Re:No, it still looks like Snowden was lying... by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Yes, Anonymous Pedant... it should have been /0... ("I'm a mathematician, Jim, not a network guru!")