NSA Director Defends Surveillance To Unsympathetic Black Hat Crowd

Trailrunner7 writes "NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander's keynote today at Black Hat USA 2013 was a tense confessional, an hour-long emotional and sometimes angry ride that shed some new insight into the spy agency's two notorious data collection programs, inspired moments of loud applause in support of the NSA, and likewise, profane heckling that called into question the legality and morality of the agency's practices. Loud voices from the overflowing crowd called out Alexander on his claims that the NSA stands for freedom while at the same time collecting, storing and analyzing telephone business records, metadata and Internet records on Americans. He also denied lying to Congress about the NSA's capabilities and activities in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism in response to such a claim from a member of the audience."

Comments

Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in polls

[bonch]

The NSA scandal has been so earth-shattering with regards to raising awareness of government surveillance that concerns over civil liberties now outweigh concerns over protecting the country. The shift is across party lines as well. It's no wonder politicians of either party have been decrying a rising trend of libertarianism. Whether or not it's accurate to classify today's anti-government fears as such, the fact that the U.S. has become the kind of country to seek asylum from is staggeringly insane. The "trust us" defense isn't good enough.

Not much of a defense

[MrEricSir]

Alexander's defense seems to amount to "See? We stopped terrorist plots using these programs!"

That's not really much of a defense, since it doesn't claim that these programs are the ONLY way to stop the terrorist plots in question. At least FTA, it seems he did not make any attempt to argue that a less invasive program would have been unsuccessful.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Microlith]

They do? I've heard them claim several numbers of stopped plots, and yet the most visible was missed completely.

Re:Not much of a defense

[amicusNYCL]

Alexander's defense seems to amount to "See? We stopped terrorist plots using these programs!"

That's not really much of a defense, since it doesn't claim that these programs are the ONLY way to stop the terrorist plots in question.

It also completely glosses over the ethical/moral questions that a lot of people have about these programs. I haven't heard a single complaint that the programs should be stopped because they aren't working, the complaints are about the ethical and moral problems associated with total government surveillance of its people, and the question of whether or not our rights are being violated. They like to skip those questions and instead answer the question they wish you asked, which is "are these programs effective".

Re:Not much of a defense

[tnk1]

Not sure what you mean. Are you claiming that they have to be 100% effective to be effective at all? I don't think that's reasonable. Pulling out one case of failure does not make a program useless.

That said, I agree that just saying, "we stopped dozens of events that I can't tell you about" can't just be said without corroboration.

Nevertheless, it's also fair to point out that stopped plots never look serious because there is always they assumption that they must have been less threatening or competent than the terrorists who succeed. The reality is that terrorists may have uneven quality, but it is as much luck and opportunity based as anything else.

One way or another, the GP is right, you have to develop intelligence to stop plots. Yes, the rights and privacy of citizens have to be considered, but people demand security, but also want to have privacy.

What I want someone to tell me is how they think that the NSA can develop good intelligence without doing what they are doing. I honestly don't know if they can or not, but what if this is the best way to do it? Do we simply accept that we will have more successful terrorist attacks without this system in place? Or will we bitch about the government not being effective when those attacks happen again?

I'd like someone to explain how we can have our cake and eat it too, and I am not just saying that, I'd really like to know what we think we could do differently. What if Alexander is *right* and it turns out that there is a more stark choice between safety and privacy?

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

I don't think anyone but the crazy wingnuts think that governments should be deprived of intelligence. The issue here isn't really that the NSA has these vast powers. After all, we've known this was likely long before 9-11, and historians have even pointed out that the Lincoln Administration had moved to gather information from all telegraph transmissions, so this has been around for a helluva lot longer than the Internet.

The issue is accountability. If you're going to do this level of data gathering, then the citizens have the right to know. Not only do they have the right to know it's going on, but they have the right to expect a reasonable level of accountability.

What has happened here is a vast program that was largely secret, where even Congress was fed marginal information, and which is overseen by a judicial entity (FISA court) that almost never says "No". There has been no accountability. The Executive has simply taken an insanely liberal reading of the Patriot Act and FISA and ran with it, and Congress hasn't even cared enough to bother asking any real questions until Edward Snowden had the balls to hand a British newspaper some internal documents detailing the level and capacity of surveillance.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Zaelath]

The trouble is "we stop plots all the time" is elephant repellant.

The Boston Bombing is the proof that the elephant repellant isn't effective if someone actually imports an elephant.

They're in a no-win situation, but the cure is still worse than the disease. Terrorism isn't a credible threat to your life and liberty, compared to driving a car it's about as likely to kill you as shark attack. The NSA solution for that is what, drain the oceans?

Re:Not much of a defense

[amicusNYCL]

If you read the article it states that General Alexander addressed the legal basis.

I did read the article, thanks.

Some people don't want intelligence surveillance to be legal at all, so they ignore the legal basis for doing it and chant about violations of the 4th amendment.

Maybe that's true, for some people. For me, I don't ignore the legal basis. I question it. I question the rubber-stamp court which claims that these are legal, and I question the decisions that court makes and the fact that their decisions, the legal basis for these programs, are classified. I hear the claims that there is a legal basis for these programs that somehow does not violate the 4th amendment, and I read the 4th amendment, and I reject the claim that these programs are legal. I welcome a public discourse with the classified courts on the legal basis for these programs. In fact, I would like this case to go to the Supreme Court, in public, with the full arguments on both sides out in the open for everyone to see and judge for themselves. I want to see the legal basis that they claim exists, and I want the public to judge the merits of it. I also want the public to judge the character and qualifications of the people who authorized these programs in the first place, starting with the Patriot Act.

For upon Secrecy, success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, & for want of it, they are generally defeated, however, well planned....

Obviously secrecy is necessary in intelligence-gathering operations. Secrecy has no place, however, in the legal basis and authorization for those operations. I will counter your quote from George Washington with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, which you can find in my signature line. If you want to talk about ignoring wisdom at one's peril, let's start with the idea of trading liberty for security.

For some mind numbingly stupid reason people keep wanting to reveal US intelligence operations to all, citizen or noncitizen alike.

Allow me to reveal the mind-numbingly stupid reason: people don't feel that their government has the right to blanket surveillance of everything they do with their communications when there is no indication that the person is a criminal. If the government is authorizing blanket surveillance of its entire population, warrantless or otherwise, and they say this somehow does not violate the fourth amendment, then it sounds like the government assumes that its entire population is composed of criminals.

Re:Not much of a defense

[amicusNYCL]

Still, I keep seeing people writing comments as if there is a lengthy file on them, or there could be at a moment's notice. I call bullshit on that for most people. Yes, they could look at Facebook and get information on you. So can I.

Can you get my Facebook chat logs, private messages, all of my HTTP traffic, web searches, files I upload or email, VPN traffic, VOIP traffic, Google Earth traffic, my usernames, buddy lists, etc? Because the NSA can, and does. Their training materials show how to query that data. Can you find an encrypted VPN, decrypt the traffic, and determine who is using the VPN? The NSA can. Can you get a list of all IP addresses that visit a website? The NSA can.

I think it is fair to ask, "are they actually using it in the way that we fear", as opposed to simply assuming the worst.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It doesn't matter how they are using it, it matters what they are collecting. It is a violation of my rights, plain and simple, for the government to intercept and store all of my electronic communications when I am not even suspected of committing a crime. That is a violation, how they use that data is not relevant to the question of whether or not it is a violation. You might be willing to hand over your rights whenever the government scares you, but I'm not. You can probably use a little wisdom from Benjamin Franklin also, see my signature line.

Re:Not much of a defense

[xevioso]

Well stated, but the problem is that this very secrecy can be used for nefarious purposes, and if there is no one to answer to, the damage to our democracy can be worse.

The screenshots in the XKeyscore presentation revealed today show a page where a person can use a drop-down menu to indicate a legal reasoning behind why the NSA analyst might want to start tracking or get more information on an email. Apparently, once done, the person can start tracking and READING emails from/to an email. Any email, not just ones abroad. Say, Senator Feinstein/Rep. Paul/ Pres. Obama. Supposedly there are no additional steps to begin reading this information; there is only a POSSIBLE audit.

Now imagine said NSA analyst decided to get this information and pass it on to political opponents in a campaign, even a presidential one. This is a very real possibility, because these sorts of shenanigans are almost GUARANTEED to happen. The damage to our very democracy would be catastrophic, because the most powerful surveillance history in the history of the world would have been brought to bear against political opponents in a campaign. If you want to see the NSA get defunded real quick, this is the best way to do it.

And in fact, there are rumors that the next thing that Snowden will "leak" will be information of this sort...not just how the NSA can spy on people, but WHICH people were spied on.

You ain't seen nothin yet.

Re:Not much of a defense

[ShanghaiBill]

Have you been to any of the classified sessions in Congress? I would assume the more juicy, more direct information is provided there.

Have you watched any of the NON-classified sessions in Congress? Such as the one where James Clapper looked Senator Ron Wyden directly in the eye, and lied through his teeth, claiming that this program doesn't even exist? Why do you think congress is getting "juicy information", when it is already clear that the spooks don't trust them and are willing to lie to them?

Re:Not much of a defense

[ifiwereasculptor]

Yes, the rights and privacy of citizens have to be considered, but people demand security, but also want to have privacy.

You know what accomplishes that pretty well? A history of foreign policy that doesn't rape other countries. Look at the number of successful terorrist attacks on argentinian people since the 1920s. And I can assure you Argentina isn't a tenth as vigilant or prepared as the US.

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

No details of any of these alleged activities was provided. Considering the source has been caught lying to Congress, why would you give it any credibility at all. Besides the phrase "terrorist-related activities" is so vague and broad it could extend from someone trying to plant dirty bombs in Akron, Ohio to some slimy little Islamist sending a few bucks to the Muslim Brotherhood. With actual details, even if the number is correct, it is completely meaningless.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Patoski]

If you read the article it states that General Alexander addressed the legal basis.

And just how is anyone supposed to evaluate the soundness of the legal opinions rendered by the FISA courts since their legal opinions are sealed?

The FISA courts have produced significant rulings and new interpretations to the 4th Amendment that no one but a select few are privy to. Are we to have a furtive judicial system where only a select few actually even know what our laws say and mean?

In a letter to one of his officers written in 1777, Washington wrote that secrecy was key to the success of intelligence activities:

Secrecy, of course -- this is always required in war and intelligence activities. But seeing as how he fought against general warrants issued by the crown, I have no doubt that he would be horrified at the scope and breadth of the NSA's broad collection policies.

For some mind numbingly stupid reason people keep wanting to reveal US intelligence operations to all, citizen or noncitizen alike. That isn't likely to end well.

For a robust demonstration regarding the need for (public) whistle blowers just look at nefarious characters like J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon who used the government's intelligence apparatus as a sword against their personal and political enemies. What place is there in this logic for whistle blowers who should expose those who are acting outside the legal confines of our great nation (e.g. Hoover, Nixon, etc.)?

Re:Not much of a defense

[WOOFYGOOFY]

You seem to confuse claiming a legal basis with there actually being a legal basis. The executive and military's lawyers can claim anything they want to; anything at all, as a legal basis. You can SAY anything, but that's not how legality is determined.

It's determined by Congress and SCOTUS. SCOTUS will decide if this is legal under current law and the Constitution. . If it finds that it is, Congress can effectively override the SCOTUS decision by making new law which prohibits what they're doing explicitly.

People claim it's illegal. They may be correct. Clearly snooping on everyone all the time so you can bring up anything about anyone any time can lead to a dysfunctional democracy. The potential for blackmail at every level of government is astronomically high. We have historical precedent- it's what Hoover did. OF course we don't even need that precedent since we *know what human nature is* and what people will do for power generally.

Huge powers like atiimic bombs are actually safer in this respect since you can't set a bomb off on one person and you can't do it without everyopne knowing. But blackmail is another matter.

Then there's things more subtle than blackmail. There's knowing a lot about someone and influencing the course of their lives based upon that knowledge. You're a person who fits this profile and statistically speaking people with your profile can't be relied on to lie if their superior tells them to.

Therefore, I'll call up my peers in industry and tell them not to hire you, that you can't be trusted to lie about all the things industry needs you to lie about. In fact, overall, for mysterious reasons you're going to find post-college employment prospects strangely limited.

In fact, some people who fit some profiles - people who are likely to go on and be especially effective - tend to die at an early age in tragic auto accidents and such like. We call it the "kill em early" program.

Then there's targeted, selected enforcement of laws against people who fit THIS profile and have said THESE kinds of things.

Knowing a lot about people is a form of power. Knowing everything about people is a form of unlimited power. No one gets unlimited power. No one.

Re:Not much of a defense

[0111 1110]

I believe his point was that every time someone uses the word "marijuana" or "weed" or "silk road" in a telephone conversation, email, IM, or god forbid on facebook they could have DEA agents at their door with a search warrant and drug sniffing dogs ready to throw them in a concrete cell for a few days without food, water, or a toilet. All the NSA would really have to do is routinely send 'digests', the results of certain keyword searches, to all branches of law enforcement who might find that information interesting. This will provide more than enough prisoners to fill prisons as fast as they can build them.

In the past it was difficult to use that information in court because it would raise questions as to how law enforcement could possibly have known the exact wording of say a cell phone conversation without having engaged in surveillance witthout a warrant. Now that the veil on their activities has been lifted they have no reason to be cautious about using the results of their surveillance dragnet for anything they wish. Although it would be interesting to see whether evidence gathered by the NSA without a warrant would be admissible in court. Even if the NSA evidence isn't admissible it might be enough evidence for a judge to grant a warrant for room audio and telephone surveillance.

Dude's got brass ones

[Robert Goatse]

Agree or disagree with what the NSA is doing, Alexander has some set of cojones to speak in front of an unfriendly mob. Hell hath no fury like a room of sweaty nerds!

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[Type44Q]

Alexander has some set of cojones to speak in front of an unfriendly mob.

Riiiiight. 'Cause a bunch of passive-aggressive hackers who've likely never been laid represent quite the physical threat level! :p

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MightyMartian]

And yet they still want to hang Snowden from the highest tree they can find.

What's really happened is that Congress, which has spent the last decade after the Patriot Act was passed jacking off and doing piss all to keep the Executive in check, is now suddenly been embarrassed by the revelations, and wants to look all huffy-and-puffy. But make no mistake, they want Snowden disemboweled just as much as the Administration, if for no other reason than having the audacity to interrupt that partisan circle jerk with some meaningful and critical to the national interest.

Re:Don't believe the lies

[MightyMartian]

Sure they lied to Congress. But Congress had the ability to call these bastards in at any time over the last decade. If the Bush and Obama Administrations are guilty of being lying power-abusing peeping toms, then Congress has to accept the blame for being utterly fucking useless. What the fuck is the point of oversight committees that provide no fucking oversight whatsoever?

Everyone from the Founding Fathers onward expected the Executive to play fast and loose and to take as much power as it could at any given moment and push the margins with incredibly liberal, if not outright ludicrous interpretations of law. That has been the nature of the executive branch since the dawn of time. The whole point of Congress is to create a check on that power, to have lawmakers who not only can hold the Executive to account, but can even pass laws to constrain the Executive when it crosses the line.

So what the fuck has the Executive done about this? Even now, a slim majority are to craven and stupid to even moderately hold the Executive to check. Yes, they'll huff and puff and make rude noises, but if they're not outright complicit in what the NSA has been up to since 9-11, then they are as much to blame for not doing the job that the Constitution set out for them.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MightyMartian]

Or hanging out in a Moscow airport waiting for the President to offer the appropriate bribe to Vladimir Putin to have your ass sent back to the United States for the crime of causing the Surveillance State a little trouble.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. If this country we more libertarian in nature the spying would just be done in backroom deals.

Libertarianism is a disease of immature minds desperate to cling to the certainty of selfish and conformation-biased concepts. It's like you can't or don't want to admit that the world doesn't work in stark theoretical extremes. That you wont admit that something like a government can be both oppressive and beneficial at the same time.

It's not regulation vs free market, tyranny vs freedom. Effective society is the product of moderation and wisdom. The problems we face are multifaceted, and so are the solutions. You need every bit of theory from communism to libertarianism to truly make something work. And even then, it will be imperfect.

Grow up, bonch. How many years have you been spewing this kind of immature shit like you just read Atlas Shrugged. Enough already. Your iPhone trolling was bad enough.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[gmuslera]

Knowing their average IQ, i bet that most blame Snowden for having no privacity now. Shooting the messenger should be the next american sport.

This is it, go with him...

[Grog6]

That's the way I see this ending, pretty much.

It's amazed me that he hasn't been "accidentally" killed in a plane crash, or other public disaster; it's not like the Russian Govt cares.

It Does amaze me that America is now a place to seek asylum From. :facepalm:

Re:This is it, go with him...

[dyingtolive]

I'm guessing that if they did anything too overt, they'd just risk making a martyr of him. Better to find some way to bury him in the public eye (dodgy rape case) or, more likely, wait a few years for him to fade into obscurity, and then he gets hit by a drunk driver.

One way or another, I don't see him seeing his 35th birthday.

Re:This is it, go with him...

[russotto]

It's amazed me that he hasn't been "accidentally" killed in a plane crash, or other public disaster; it's not like the Russian Govt cares.

Of course the Russian government cares; as long as he's around he's a thumb in the eye of the US, and that's sufficient reason to care.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[HermMunster]

The man lied to Congress and is participating in illegal unconstitutional mass surveillance and seizure of every American's private data, all for the very limited success of saving less lives than that lost by slipping in the tub during a bath/shower. He's a criminal. He's abused the people's trust and has flat out lied to every American as well as those American's that sit in Congress. He needs to be in jail for a very long time along with all his compatriots.

You can't debate the goodness of violating the Constitution. We can't have our government (and the associated military) making decisions of what part, and when, to uphold the Constitution. No, the Executive Branch is not responsible for determining what should or should not be upheld nor are they even responsible for defending the American people. The President's primary duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Protecting us from the terrorists?

[dgharmon]

If the cost of protecting us from the terrorists is to live in a police state, then I would prefer to take my chances with the terrorists. The odds of me being a target are minimal while the risks of a corrupt government using this total awareness system to oppress my freedom are that much greater. Fact is, you are more in danger from your own state security apparatus that any foreign terrorist. Iraq never attacked the US. Saddam Hussein was a puppet president installed by the CIA and an ally of the US, at least until he invaded Kuwait and threatened to stop trading his Oil in petrodollars. Al-Qaeda was formed from the remnants of a guerilla army armed and financed by the CIA to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As such, US state security would have been aware of their capability, ideology and intentions. As such the state security apparatus didn't need the NSA to know this as they - state security - helped create it. What this lawful intercept program is really about is silencing political dissent, such as the Occupy Wall St movement.

27:25 "We comply with the court orders and do this exactly right", Gen. Keith Alexander

There are NO court orders !

NSA Director General Keith Alexander at Blackhat 2013

Re:Welcome to the 21st century.

[Luckyo]

I like how you choose to completely disregard human history in favor of super-optimistic drivel.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Shadow of Eternity]

They weren't jacking off, they were raking in billions of dollars in "campaign contributions" from the corporations that have been getting all of the contracts these agencies need.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Tough Love]

the fact that the U.S. has become the kind of country to seek asylum from is staggeringly insane

Not as insane as the fact that the U.S. executive is determined to prevent sovereign nations from providing asylum.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Coward]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Is it really that hard to understand? Seems pretty clear to me. You fuckers are not allowed to search through or gather any info about me without probable cause and a warrant. The warrant has to name the person and place to be searched after probable cause is established. Threat of terrorism is not probable cause. Writing into your federal laws and saying that it is ok does not make it ok. The Constitution is the preeminent law of the US and writing laws that violate it is illegal and is grounds for treason. Especially when you take an oath to protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic.

That oughta get me on the list...

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The man lied to Congress and is participating in illegal unconstitutional mass surveillance and seizure of every American's private data

It seems clear that they're doing it to us non-Americans even more. While that might be no immediate problem to US representatives who only have their own electorates to worry about, the damage to the US reputation abroad has already started. I imagine it will only get worse as people start to realise how much control and monitoring of the Internet and the wider technology industry one country has been allowed to have for so long. The catalyst for this might have been Snowden, and the fall guy might be the NSA, but no organisation could have achieved all of this alone.

The persistent trivialisation of the US spying abroad, even in public statements by very senior officials, is not going to do any favours for allied governments who are found to have been complicit in the whole deal or whose own questionable monitoring practices come to light, either. Angela Merkel could be in a lot of trouble, with Germany for obvious reasons being culturally more sensitive about this sort of thing than most. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a more overt backlash against it here in the UK, particularly given the key role of The Guardian in recent disclosures, but I wonder how much of this is just the chilling effect at work and/or the media here taking a bit longer to realise that the tides of public opinion are shifting and playing their collective cards close to their chests after some rough arguments with government in recent years.

Ultimately the US government can defend that mass surveillance of foreign citizens as if it's somehow defending its people. Maybe in a few cases that is even true; after all, there obviously are some actually bad people in the world, and security services were formed for a reason, so it's important to keep a level head and not to lose context and perspective when debating these issues. However, I think we can all imagine what the same US officials would be calling it if the tables were turned, though I suppose they might flip between "cyber-terrorism" and "act of war" depending on the strength of the other party.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[stoploss]

So in short you see no harm whatsoever in warning terrorists to avoid means of communication that leave them vulnerable and help to protect the rest of us?

Precisely. Who watches the watchers? Life is inherently risky, and freedom requires risk.

The insane part is that we have built this surveillance state in response to the deaths of 0.001% of our population. I would far rather run the risk of me and my family being killed by terrorist action than to have our country destroyed by our own twisted government (as they seem hell-bent upon accomplishing in the shortest possible time).

Let PRISM proceed to log this for future reference / character assassination purposes.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[VortexCortex]

Ultimately the US government can defend that mass surveillance of foreign citizens as if it's somehow defending its people.

And the American people would go right along with that. Which just illustrates how fucking inept these assholes are, they got caught red handed spying on the American people and lied about it -- If they had any actual competency they could have avoided all of the flack. All it would have taken is not biting the hand that feeds them.

That they couldn't even do that is reason enough to oust them all. I'm a realist. I realize corrupt crap goes down. However, it would be insane to let folks this brain damaged continue operating with such power. Godwin be damned, Hitler was just such an overreaching moron too.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[0111 1110]

Stop being such a frightened coward. Be a man and accept that there are risks in life. You simply cannot stop suicide bombers. Most of them don't have a Facebook page for your friends to monitor. They may not have an internet connection at all and certainly don't have a smartphone.

Some of us value liberty, value not being watched by law enforcement agents every second of our lives to see if we might be breaking some law or might secretly be planning to blow up the white house. Do you have no understanding of the sort of freedom this country was founded on?

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MightyMartian]

Life is full of risks. I suspect more lives could be saved by increasing highway patrols or passing laws requiring rubber tread on bathtubs or increasing funding for CPR training than will be saved by spying on who I talk to on Skype.

Let me turn your question on its head. Is there are any level of surveillance you would be unable to tolerate in the quest for safety?

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[TheGratefulNet]

And the American^Hworld's people would go right along with that.

FTFY

this is not american. this is every single country that has the ability to wiretap and spy.

its a human power trip thing. nothing about one country, really; its more about how people will abuse their power at every chance, if not kept in check.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't that the point? If I can't notice it, so how would I know that I am being searched? To do a physical search, You actually need to show a warrant, or it is illegal, and any evidence collected without a warrant is inadmissible. Now show me the warrants, signed by a judge in a transparent (i.e. not secret) judicial process, for that monitoring. Show me something my lawyer can check for me, show me that whatever the search was for, it was actually deemed necessary, and what kind of a case I'm being involved with.
As it stands now, it is rather ther other way around: it's like throwing a net into an ocean, to catch one particular kind of fish, dragging every other type with it, sorting the unwanted kinds but still keeping them because they might someday be useful. Or sellable in the harbor.

USA cloud providers

[dutchwhizzman]

USA cloud providers are going to feel the hurt of this for a long time in the future. Even if they promise to keep your data outside of the USA, they'll still not be trusted, since there is no way to be certain data isn't handed over anyway.

Hey Nobel Committee

[ThatsNotPudding]

Time to revoke Obama's fake prize and give to a real hero: Eric Snowden.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[TWiTfan]

Green tech won't fix this. Countries will just start fighting over the rare earth minerals and other commodities needed for green tech. The fighting will shift slightly, but it won't stop.