NZ Police Got PRISM Data Before Raid On Dotcom

Bismillah writes "Police affidavits show that the New Zealand Police requested and received assistance from the country's signals intelligence agency, the GCSB, which appears to have used PRISM to intercept Kim and Mona Dotcom and the Megaupload associates' communications."

Comments

Was that really necessary?

[cold fjord]

That seems a bit excessive.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Fluffeh]

On the upside, with this cat out of the bag now, at least it is going to be brought up in court. Kim doesn't seem to be the sort of chap who will keep quiet and just let it slide. He is probably straightening his tie as we speak and about to knock on the door of the nearest court in NZ.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[mitcheli]

Law enforcement using intercepted communications in the pursuit of catching the criminal. Certainly that has never happened before.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was necessary. They only way to completely stack the deck in your favor is to lie, cheat and steal. The fact that it's a government doing it, and they're dong it to oppress individuals or groups, only means that it was used to fight terrorism, or to protect the children, or to protect IP rights holders, or to protect politicians and/or their friends. So yes, it was completely necessary.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[sjwt]

When the US is in command, nothing is excessive when protecting the income of Big business.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[cold fjord]

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Pseudonym Authority]

Of course! Copyright infringement funds terrorists!

Wait a minute... that's supposed to be YOUR line!

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence.

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?

I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited.

Why? If we absolutely must have these programs (which we shouldn't), we can at least catch some child pornographers or tax evaders so we can pat ourselves on the backs. Why pay for the same thing twice?

I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified, hahahahaha.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[AHuxley]

Cold what do you expect NZ to do when it comes under pressure from the USA? At anytime the USA can turn off the NSA data stream.
NZ learned a lot from the Rainbow Warrior, international treaties, understandings, letters, assurances, visits, friendships and decades of cooperation are totally worthless.
When NZ asked Australia, the US, UK for small amounts of basic telco help with France they got very little back.
So NZ now knows its place, when the US asks for anything, NZ does all it can with all its tools (NSA was very good to the NZ gov and vast, expensive new telco work).
National security assets where in no way limited and NZ national security staff seemed happy to help before any new telco/spy law changes.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[icebike]

Wait, are you saying that PRISM was used for enforcement of some media company's copyrights?
Or was it used to try to prop up the arrest after the fact?

Because once there is proof that these systems are secret to the population of the USA, but used freely to enforce some copyrights for campaign donners, shit could hit the fan in high places.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[icebike]

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Especially when the "law enforcement" issue was basically a civil matter of copyright.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[c0lo]

That seems a bit excessive.

Are you that naïve to think those system are never going to be abused?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[c0lo]

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence.

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?

Captain Old News?
I don't see how this makes it right.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Pseudonym]

In all the courtroom pictures I've seen of him, I don't recall ever seeing a tie.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[SuricouRaven]

Sarcasm aside, this ridiculous claims has actually been made by not only copyright agencies, but the US government, to justify more money for copyright-enforcement efforts.
news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/03/us-attorney-general-piracy-funds-terror/

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't trying to justify it, I was challenging the quoted part by saying that it isn't true that there is a dividing line between the two.

Also not sure why you're posting that when I clearly just referenced the same thing. Are you implying that I didn't know about it when I just brought it up?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Sperbels]

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA

Because we give spy agencies greater powers than we give to domestic law enforcement agencies...because of a little thing called the Bill of Rights.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[hairyfeet]

It case you didn't get the memo the corps rule the governments now, so any and all measures to protect profits, especially from IP whose term limits have been made into "forever minus a single day" SHALL be employed.

I have to wonder if this isn't the reason why all empires fall and governments rarely survive more than a century or two, that an end result of massive corruption and wealth consolidation simply is unavoidable. Sadly I think we have it worse than ever before thanks to the net making it easy to transfer huge sums of money around the world in seconds, thus allowing the megacorps to unduly influence pretty much any country on the planet thanks to the mountains of money they sit upon.

Every time I hear of a government being a pitbull for the megacorps i am always reminded of these words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21 1864 "I see in the near future a crisis approaching; corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Replace the republic with the name of any country and you have what we have now.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[symbolset]

Not really. I used to believe people gave a shit, but really - they don't. Most people really don't care. Even if the accused is accused of something they do every day they will sit on the jury and convict because the specific circumstance doesn't apply to them, because the prosecutor is so persuasive about how the specific way the accused is claimed to have done it is a criminal act, and take the lesson to mind their ways ever after about that specific way. Until they are in the dock proclaiming that it is not fair to people who were like them and will convict them too for failing to observe a different specific nuance of imaginary property in an exquisitely specific different way.

This is an odd game where the combatants define the rules dynamically after the fact. For a decade after play ends the outcome is in doubt. The only real way to win is not to play. Or to be one of the many lawyers who get hourly fees to contest the outcome.

In my mind it's just one symptom of the cancer of lawyers infesting the body public. Class action laywers have given up even the pretense of giving their clients a coupon for a discount toward their opponent's products in settlement as justification for their disproportionate share of the penalty, and now collect without compensating the victims at all. In cases like Prenda they generate their own plaintiffs, respondents and misdeeds to generate profits out of whole cloth.

It is not fair. It is not right. But this is how it is, and unless people unite to fight it this is ... hey, Wilfred's next season dropped on Netflix. BRB.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, the parent is correct, but it will be as a rambo style headband

Re:Was that really necessary?

[mitcheli]

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?

Perhaps a better question is, if the FBI obtains a warrant to "wiretap" would that give them justification to do a narrow search on the pool of data already collected. Probably true that the collected data couldn't be used to initiate an investigation, but if the investigation is initiated through other means, what does that mean?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, but cold fjord claimed that that was standard practice, which it isn't. I want to know what lead him to believe that it was.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[c0lo]

I wasn't trying to justify it
...
Are you implying that I didn't know about it when I just brought it up?

My apologies: your post didn't make very clear if you were attempting a justification or not.

Additionally, the assertiveness of your "Elaborate." request and the cheeky tone in "Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified" suggested a total disagreement with the post you replied to (including the fact that you might think there is a justification).

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems wrong. Neither spy agencies nor law enforcement agencies should be very powerful... because of a little thing called the Bill of Rights. The NSA scandal (and many other past events) has shown that spy agencies are just as much of a threat to our freedoms.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems a bit excessive.

Who are you, and what have you done with Cold Fjord?

Re: Was that really necessary?

[saihung]

No one forced him to use an international communication system.

So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, the assertiveness of your "Elaborate." request and the cheeky tone in "Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified" suggested a total disagreement with the post you replied to (including the fact that you might think there is a justification).

Hence the "hahahaha" right after that, which was to suggest that the idea that it could be justified is laughable.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[icebike]

Your assertion that people don't give a shit is demonstrably false, rendering the rest of your post somewhat of a defeatist rant.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[symbolset]

[Citation needed]. Specifically a situation where people in general give a shit, rather than unique powerless individuals.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[c0lo]

Hence the "hahahaha" right after that, which was to suggest that the idea that it could be justified is laughable.

Just happens the entire matter with secret courts for national security, there's a justification even if you don't know about it is too serious for me to make jokes about; this comes from the more than half of my life being spent under a former communist regime, with a pretty nasty secret police. (You know? It just happened at that time for people you to just disappear, without anyone around them knowing why: it was secret and it affected your life). I'm rather not inclined to see such things as jokes, even when they genuinely intend to be.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Jesrad]

In my mind it's just one symptom of the cancer of lawyers infesting the body public. Class action laywers have given up even the pretense of giving their clients a coupon for a discount toward their opponent's products in settlement as justification for their disproportionate share of the penalty, and now collect without compensating the victims at all. In cases like Prenda they generate their own plaintiffs, respondents and misdeeds to generate profits out of whole cloth.

The sad fact that victims don't get compensated over damages is plain unacceptable, but like the existence of copyright privileges and the ongoing mob-racket of random people suspected of using filesharing services, it's a consequence of normative inflation, or runaway legislation (some might call it lawrrhea). The more complex right and law is, the more costly (in efforts, knowledge, time spent and capital expense) it is to stay out of trouble. This situation artificially creates a market for more and more lawyers, so it's no surprise there are some who take advantage of it, whether prosecuting or defending.

So, make no mistake: the cancer started in the Houses. It merely metastasized across economy from there.

Re: Was that really necessary?

[BlueStrat]

No one forced him to use an international communication system.

So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

Tyranny & corruption have graduated from the individual-nation level, to being a global/international level game. National leaders/power-brokers have realized the advantages to cooperation, at least on limited terms, with the leaders/power-brokers of other nations toward the goal of controlling ever more of people's lives, liberty, and wealth.

It's corruption and betrayal/treason/tyranny on a global, international scale. This is the non-tinfoil/black-helo, real-world "NWO". It isn't some wild super-secret conspiracy theory. It's just your everyday human corruption and lust for wealth and power that has evolved over time and with the opportunities that technology advances and mass media propaganda over time provide to operate across borders, political systems, and even sovereign interests.

It's things like TFA describes, and things like the US and UK or NZ each spying on the other's citizens and exchanging the data to avoid legal/constitutional proscriptions against domestic spying. Things like treaties that "force" a (or a set of) national laws to be changed/abolished to comply with treaty terms, when the whole aim was to get said changes made against popular wishes and/or to avoid/bypass legal/constitutional restrictions.

The fact that Snowden's and other's whistle-blower domestic surveillance revelations happened at all indicates that either the surveillance apparatus and infrastructure has grown so enormous and all-encompassing that it was bound to happen, or that things are so much under their control that it really doesn't matter that much any longer to those in power if the public finds out.

Or both.

None of which bodes any good for regular people anywhere, not just in the US, as TFA illustrates so well.

Strat

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's terrible. I'll do my best to never offend you again.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[DarkOx]

I like how we are told by every government mouth piece how much harm these revelations by snowden, manning and fisa declassifications are doing to there anti terror intelligence work, but were willing to risk exposing it for copyright infirgment. Kinda cuts right through their bullshit about this being for the public good.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed] People have been known not to care, take their American Idol off their TV screens, in fact, take their TVs off them, then they'll riot.

I have no idea why you got modded to 3 Interesting, especially without proof. The people with mod points here have no idea what they're doing.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[lightknight]

Nonsense. You see, for the people doing this stuff on behalf of the NSA, their actions are completely justified: to beat the criminals, they needed to become better criminals than the criminals. The irony of said statement, as well as the mental gymnastics involved, are truly breath-taking...but rest-assured, they are very righteous in their cause.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Velex]

Some people seem to care, but it seems we're in the minority.

Another poster brought up the Occupy movement. Everything I've heard about how that movement was "dealt with" frankly made my skin crawl. Another example is the Tea party. It started out as a grassroots libertarian protest against "too big to fail" back in 2008, but by 2010 it had been completely co-opted into an astroturf wing of the Republican party.

The thing is that the powers that be have a very good understanding of psychology and sociology to the point of being expert manipulators. However, the only way it works is if enough people have their bread and circuses. When enough people are "getting by" (but only through "hard"/stressful work, so they can feel as though they've earned what they have and deserve no more and no less because after all if they wanted more they could just work "harder" and the magic Invisible Hand or else the magic Sky Wizard will provide more) they tend not to care about what's going on in the larger picture.

The thing that's been really creeping me out honestly in the past two to three-ish years is just how damned well the powers that be understand this dynamic.

It seems that the real trick is that people don't care right up until one of their family is targeted. Then they start caring. Until then, however, they'll reason that if they're doing ok that the propoganda in the mainstream media must be true. They want to pat themselves on the back for their hard work and good decisions like not getting "into drugs" (i.e. they've successfully resisted the devil in marijuana all these years so they must be good people and anyone who even gives into the devil/marijuana/"drugs" once must be a bad person). So, if the mainstream media says that the Occupy movement is just a bunch of aimless drug seekers who are defecating in public spaces, it must be true.

Of course, the trouble is programs like the oft mentioned here on /. COINTELPRO. All a powerful entity needs to do is plant enough people in enough highly visible places in a movement, and they can effectively control perception of that movement. Want to paint Occupy as a bunch of dirty hippies without jobs looking for handouts? Send in enough people to loudly ask every passer-by if they have any weed, and tell them to harass local businesses and generally be obnoxious.

A more prosiac example would be federalized Romneycare/Obamacare. The ACA seems to be utterly set up to fail. Insurance companies are already raising their premiums and blaming the ACA while really none of the provisions of the ACA that matter have kicked in yet (health insurance exchanges, vouchers/subsidies as I understand it, and the personal mandate). The thing that really worries me is how many people buy into the narrative that health insurance companies just have to raise premiums because of Barry and his Kenyan socialism so blindly instead of being more sceptical of the insurance companies themselves and demanding better justification for premium hikes than just "because ACA." The lack of critical thinking in the masses is truly terrifying.

Sure, it all sounded like a lot of tinfoil hattery even a few years ago. However, the more information that comes out, the more we can begin to suspect that perhaps our tinfoil hats really weren't on too tight after all. Now we have verification of things like "parallel construction," wide-scale domestic spying, incestuous data sharing among agencies, secret courts, national security letters, and a complete breakdown of due process.

However, the public isn't too worried. After all, they haven't come for me or anyone I know personally, and all the people I know are hard-working Americans, so therefore, there must be an element of truth that if I don't have anything to hide, it must really be the case that I don't have anything to worry about. History be damned.

So of course these "leakers" are just malcontents the reasoning goes. They're access information t

Re:Was that really necessary?

[captainpanic]

Aren't US government resources always used to improve the financial situation of corporations? Once there is proof that these systems are used freely to help a corporation, a lot of people will say that "it is necessary to help our struggling economy".

Re:Was that really necessary?

[cold fjord]

Sorry A., but I think NZ could have very easily said "No" if the request came from the US. I don't think this was an especially high profile case, and NZ has mapped its own path before. You may recall their ban on nukes, and the NZ governments being open to stronger ties to China?

If NZ is cooperating with the US, it is because it because it finds it to be in its interest, not because it "knows it place." There is, no doubt, considerable advantage to having good relations with the rest of the Anglosphere.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I'm not the only one whom is frightened by how screwed up things have become and how willing the masses are to accept transparent excuses. It honestly has my afraid deep down that we're going to see a war on US soil in my life time. We're letting our government get away with overstepping their bounds (on a global scale) so often that they seems to have gotten comfortable being a bully. If history has taught us anything, it should be that countries which bully other countries become the target of large scale warfare.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[coofercat]

Someone's got to pay for the billions worth of IT and manpower used to run this stuff. Why not rent it out to anyone with a suitcase full of cash?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't offended. Just provided the answers to some civilized asked questions.

Re: Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think anything happens. Nobody cares, which is really sad.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Dachannien]

Another example is the Tea party. It started out as a grassroots libertarian protest against "too big to fail" back in 2008, but by 2010 it had been completely co-opted into an astroturf wing of the Republican party.

I'm glad somebody else recognizes this, because I'm tired of fiscal responsibility being painted with the same brush as Michelle Bachman's ilk. When the Tea Party first started getting media attention, I was interested in subscribing to their newsletter, but now they're basically just the Christian conservative message wrapped up in some anti-tax stuff. By taking a minority viewpoint and acting like they have some sort of political mandate, they're spelling an early doom for the GOP-ers who are willing to play ball with the Dems. (The GOP would likely collapse eventually anyway, but it would have taken a lot longer for the demographics to shift without the help of the new "Tea Party".)

The ACA seems to be utterly set up to fail.

What I don't get is why the federal exchanges exclude those people who aren't eligible for insurance through their employers. They ought to be available for everyone to choose an insurance plan from, with the employer paying their share to whichever insurance plan the employee chooses.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[marcello_dl]

I definitely agree with your analysis; I would add that it is naturally difficult for people to converge to a common goal as the number of the people interested grows, and guess what, the center of power is raised at every occasion.
First states overtook regions and towns, then federal unions like USA, URSS, EU overtook states, next a global government (which is de facto already here) will make the angry citizen totally irrelevant unless he coordinates with a couple billion friends.

Popular culture pushes for individualism and competition, so no "getting together and doing something about it". Stuff like the mafia is also perverting, as a collateral effect, the concepts of family bond and local, self-organizing society, which are not always bad things.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Bucc5062]

You mirrored my thoughts so well I wanted to thank you for expressing them. Just this morning I am listening to an NPR article where the NPR "reporter" interviewed Mr. Muller, soon to be retired head of the FBI. Generally it was a fluff piece, but what started to bother me was when they talked about 9/11 and how the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, was now tasked with protecting our country from *terrorist* and acting *preemptively*. Really? I thought, When did Investigation turn in to Surveillance (aka FBS).

So Mr. Muller tells us that instead of focusing on small things like white collar crime and violent crime he now needs to focus on an incredibly small group of people who pale compared to the terrorism Bankers, Hedge Fund managers, and other white collar criminals have committed against the people of this country. He even states, "We only have some much money so we spend it chasing bad guys with bombs that we cannot catch till after they explode"...well, my interpretation of he banal comment.

Normally I am not a conspiracy type of person, but I cannot help, but wonder that after 9/11 as all of our law enforcement is now shifted to l;ook for bad guys in the desert, laws like Glass-Segal are repealed, Wall Street investment brings this country (and the world) almost to the point of ruin, and the FBI was unable to investigate, because they were spending so much time looking for terrorists. Good timing.

My final thought as I listened to the end of this fluff was that the NPR reporter was just another tool to be used in a propaganda machine. She didn't ask or talk about why the FBI felt white collar crime was less important, she did not ask or push questions about unwarranted surveillance an d the FBI's role, and she certainly did not act like a reporter; she acted like a prop for a show. Very disappointing. I fear that investigative journalism is all but buried as Corporations hold more control of media centers. Ask the hard questions and soon you are shut out of access and the talking heads still get face time from the toodies trotted out by primary Media conglomerates.

Fox - Owned by Rupert Murdoch (and branched in many countries)
ABC - Owned by Walt Disney Corp
NBC - Owned by General Electric
CBS - Viacom, but ( Predecessor firms of Viacom include Gulf+Western, which later became Paramount Communications Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
CNN - Time Warner

Iit is amazing how only 4 major conglomerates control, TV, Radio, Print, and more and more Internet media to the point where most of the content was absorb comes from only these four sources..

In a country that championed the idea of the 4th Estate, it has been supplanted by a Jim Taylor machine so vast it may not be brought down. Even NPR, my bastion of good reporting now seems to be losing ground. (sigh)

Re:Was that really necessary?

[meta-monkey]

My final thought as I listened to the end of this fluff was that the NPR reporter was just another tool to be used in a propaganda machine. She didn't ask or talk about why the FBI felt white collar crime was less important, she did not ask or push questions about unwarranted surveillance an d the FBI's role, and she certainly did not act like a reporter; she acted like a prop for a show. Very disappointing. I fear that investigative journalism is all but buried as Corporations hold more control of media centers. Ask the hard questions and soon you are shut out of access and the talking heads still get face time from the toodies trotted out by primary Media conglomerates.

The NPR reporter did an excellent job. A word to the wise, after all.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[meta-monkey]

Well, after all, as one of my favorite /. .sigs says, "file sharing is rape and file sharers are rapists."

Re: Was that really necessary?

[meta-monkey]

It's corruption and betrayal/treason/tyranny on a global, international scale. This is the non-tinfoil/black-helo, real-world "NWO". It isn't some wild super-secret conspiracy theory. It's just your everyday human corruption and lust for wealth and power that has evolved over time and with the opportunities that technology advances and mass media propaganda over time provide to operate across borders, political systems, and even sovereign interests.

Root of all evil...

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Bucc5062]

Did was listen to the same report? She did an excellent job within some narrow confine of a fluff piece about the retiring of an FBI agent, but it was little on substance and great PR for Muller and the "new" FBI. On one level I really don't give a shit about some top level official retiring unless there is some substance, something news worthy, otherwise her piece was just a variation on the introduction some other inbred official was giving in the background of her report. "Blue blazer, kackie pants...blah blah blah...like he was some ordinary guy when Mr. Muller was far from ordinary.

How about she asked "Mr. Muller, as you retire from the FBI, do you feel that government officials are above the law or can break the law in order to enforce other parts of the law?" "Mr. Muller, the FBI has done a good job of stopping most bombings in the country, (though Boston seemed to be missed), what effort has the FBI made under your watch to bring those who destroyed thousands of lives in potentially illegal trade actions to justice. Do you stay awake at night thinking about the thousands of people made homeless, lives ruined at the hands of white collar criminals?" "Have you talked to the families of people who committed suicide, because some executive broke the law and foreclosed on homes with no oversight or review?"

Now those would be questions worthy to listen too for a response.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree with you, but I feel that the folks that have access to PRISM data (raw) won't share any of it with everyday citizens of America. In all areas of technology, there's a huge cost in the beginning, and then later it's cheaper. Well, PRISM probably was a few billion to get started, and they're looking for a come-back (wink-wink). Why the hell wouldn't they use it for lawsuits over copyright?

Also, don't think that other countries didn't toss in some cash for PRISM to get started, and don't think that they're not going to get their fare share of data. Hell, the political data alone would be worth it to anyone running for office somewhere.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[meta-monkey]

Now those would be questions worthy to listen too for a response.

Indeed, and yet they were not asked. Meditate on that.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[silvergeek]

You hit the nail on the head, sorry to say. As you implied, the masses are lazy. Less lazy folks might consider transitioning to encrypted mail, such as Hushmail (hushmail.com). That would keep the NSA busy.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Bucc5062]

Okay...got it...a little slow today. An Excellent job indeed.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[BitZtream]

Really, people care? Other than posting some shit on slashdot, what have you done?

You're going to be hard pressed to attack PRISM over court cases where its being used to prosecute someone who is clearly guilty. Doesn't matter if its right or wrong, the public would rather see guilty in jail than attack the way they got there.

Are you so stupid that you throw out 'good' uses of the system just because of the 'bad' ones? If thats the case, we need to release every prison in every jail or prison in the country.

You're just an over the top, unrealistic person who can't see the forest for the trees.

PRISM is bullshit.

You still won't find me arguing over it putting trash like dotcom in jail, regardless of what country they live in.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[BitZtream]

... Do you expect massive media organizations to be owned by some poverty line stricken schmuck in South Dakota living in the middle of the woods with no job?

Of course they are owned by big corps, or people with massive amounts of money. Its retarded to expect anything else. Owning them, by definition, makes you worth a lot of money and powerful.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[BitZtream]

but if the investigation is initiated through other means, what does that mean?

Assuming you can prove it, and aren't just talking out your ass, then it would be thrown out of court like many other cases around the nation.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[cold fjord]

Terrorist groups raise funds by many illegal means. Few people realize that the terrorist groups such Hezbollah and Hamas actually have at least hundreds, possibly thousands, of people operating in the US, many of them raising funds. This goes back to at least 1995 if not earlier. If it's stupid, but it works, then it's not stupid.

Homegrown terrorists - How a Hezbollah cell made millions in sleepy Charlotte, N.C. - Posted 3/2/03

Moonlighting from his job as a deputy sheriff, Sgt. Bob Fromme was working security one day at JR Discount, a tobacco wholesaler in Statesville, N.C., when he saw three Arabic-speaking men buying a huge stash of cigarettes--300 cartons apiece. But what really caught Fromme's eye was how the men paid. They reached into shopping bags and pulled out wads of cash, bound in rubber bands. The men soon became regular customers at JR, shoving pallets of Marlboros and Winstons into waiting vans.

That was back in 1995. Over the next four years, Fromme worked with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in tracking the men. His suspicions would ultimately prove dead-on. The investigation revealed a multimillion-dollar tobacco smuggling ring. Copying an old Mafia scam, the men ran truckloads of North Carolina smokes--taxed at only 50 cents a carton--to Michigan, where the tax was $7.50 a carton, and illegally pocketed the difference....

Cigarette Smuggling Linked to Terrorism - 2004;

Terrorists may get money from regional, cheap cigarette smuggling ring: Ray Kelly

Some of those arrested in the bust have links to Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheik, and Rashid Baz, who opened fire on a van of Yeshiva students on the Brooklyn Bridge, killing Ari Halberstam. ‘We're concerned because similar schemes have been used in the past to help fund terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah,’ says Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[CrimsonAvenger]

potentially illegal trade actions

"potential" crimes are not within the FBI's purview, really.

And bringing people "to justice" for doing something that is "potentially" a crime is, well, not a place we really need to be going....

Re:Was that really necessary?

[anagama]

When the Tea Party first started getting media attention, I was interested in subscribing to their newsletter, but now they're basically just the Christian conservative message wrapped up in some anti-tax stuff.

Denninger quoted here, voted for Obama BTW:

Karl Denninger, an original organizer of the Tea Party, is out with a livid blog post blasting current leaders of the conservative movement and the apparent hypocrisy in their views of the economic issues that originally catalyzed its creation.

According to Denninger, "Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and douchebag groups such as the Tea Party Patriots" are to blame for the bastardization of a movement that now seems focused on "Guns, gays, God," instead of the Tea Party's original mission: to castigate the federal government for supporting the "rampant theft" of taxpayer dollars that went toward "propping up FAILED private businesses."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another example is the Tea party. It started out as a grassroots libertarian protest against "too big to fail" back in 2008, but by 2010 it had been completely co-opted into an astroturf wing of the Republican party.

Interesting. The original Tea Party protests I read about at the time did not oppose Bush's bank bail out package. They were protesting Obama's stimulus. The Tea Party people I saw on TV were 100% anit-Obama and that was about it. Later everyone and their brother said they were the true Tea Party and to this day I can't get a clear answer on where the Tea Party stands on most issues. The only clear one is "cut taxes".

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Bucc5062]

... Do you expect massive media organizations to be owned by some poverty line stricken schmuck in South Dakota living in the middle of the woods with no job?

No. I am uncomfortable that they are owned by big corporations. I am troubled that over time this country ignored the process that tied Journalism to corporate profits so that today *only* people with massive amounts of money control the dissemination of news. The rest of your comment is specious and lacking in value.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Bucc5062]

Okay, that line was not as well formed as I would have liked. You are correct and I contradicted myself a bit without realizing. It just strikes me that there is a lot of looking the other way in some areas of crime versus others. The FBI can create a sting to capture a would be bomber (is that allowed), but they can't or wont do the same to catch a potential white collar criminal?

Re: Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the amount of damages come into play?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[cloakedpegasus]

I agree with the main idea of your post, which is that most people don't care about the current threats, made obvious by the fact that there is not enough uproar by the communities, and that businesses and governments seem to continue like it's business as usual. Isn't it clear that in order for there to be change, action must be taken? Many of us who care about the issues you mentioned above (we care to different degrees) indulge in complaining instead of cooperative problem solving. Is it a lack of know-how, motivation, or intelligence?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[thrich81]

First of all, thanks for the comment. I've been working on one for a few days which basically says that despite the outrage on Slashdot, the general public doesn't really care about all this NSA stuff. Though I think you feel that the "powerful agents" over us have manipulated the public more directly and effectively than I think they have. I think the public really doesn't care and doesn't care to be informed, either. This was brought home to me last night as I surveyed the fare offered by the major TV networks in prime time -- "reality" and game shows. Sadly, those are the people we live with, if we don't like it we have to move -- where, I don't know. One more point I think you (and many others) have missed -- your "interesting times" comment -- it has been "interesting times" at least through the entire 20th century. This latest government overreach isn't new compared to the FBI under Hoover. Now we say -- "the government could ruin people's lives through this spying", well during the Red Scare of the '50s, it did ruin many peoples lives through spying and paranoid accusations of Communist influences. The biggest corps and media have always been mostly (not all) corrupt, too. I don't know what to do about it but it isn't all that new...

Re: Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Name something that hasn't been.
It isn't good justification to disband every organization ever formed, because shit will happen.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[idontgno]

You see, for the people doing this stuff on behalf of the NSA, their actions are completely justified: to beat the criminals, they needed to become better criminals than the criminals.

Apparently, they've spent so long staring into the abyss that not only is the abyss staring back, it's come up and offered them some free cool aid.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[chihowa]

File sharing and peer to peer copyright infringement (what Dotcom was allegedly facilitating) don't raise funds for anybody. Selling bootleg movies on the street may fund terrorism, but the copyright infringement happening on Bittorrent and Megaupload isn't commercial in nature and there's no money changing hands at all. It's like saying smiling at people funds terrorism; it's a completely absurd statement.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[chihowa]

I've noticed that NPR has been shockingly pro-government and unwilling to do anything but voice total support for US government policies since at least 2009 (maybe earlier). At the time it seemed like a stark transition, but it has been certainly getting even more propaganda-ish since then. All of their interviews now seem to be like the one you described: taking every official statement at face value and only ever asking softball questions.

  I can't stand to listen to it anymore; I can feel it killing brain cells.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[HiThere]

The main point is that the owners of the new media are not news organizations. Consider the implications.

To help you in your consideration...
1) Kentucky Fried Chicken used to be extremely tastey.
2) H. Salt Fish and chips used to be not only extremely tastey, but quite popular.
3) Hublein, basically a liquor company, bought KFC. Within a few months that chicken became not worth my eating.
4) About a year later, KFC bought H. Salt fish and chips. Within the same month that also became not worth eating.
5) It's been years since I've seen an H. Salt fish and chips store. (I may have seen on inside a KFC outlet a year or two ago. But it could be a decade ago.)

Re:Was that really necessary?

[shadowofwind]

I think you're overestimating the manipulative conspiracy side of it. People aren't apathetic because they're being expertly played by the elite. They're apathetic because underneath the veneer of sociability they're actually selfish assholes who would themselves abuse power if they had it.

Furthermore, the minority who would do something to change this is actually a lot smaller than it might appear. Most of the people who bitch about eroding freedoms are posturing to themselves and to others, mad about the system because they don't feel its working enough to their own advantage, which they've convinced themselves is what they deserve. Give them more power and they almost always sell out. Put them in a situation where doing the right thing requires an actual personal sacrifice, which it usually does, and they won't make it.

I worked in the surveillance industry for several years. I fought it the best I could when I was in it, without much effect, then got a chance to get out and took it. The price I paid is I haven't been able to find work within a thousand miles of where my family lives, so for the past 5 years my kids have been growing up without me. They need a dad and they'll never get that back. As of a few months ago we're closer now, 450 miles, so at least I can visit a lot of weekends. And I realize that my story is a lot less difficult than what many other people have to deal with in their lives. But it still pisses me off that the armchair idealists don't stand up for their ideals a little better. If they did things would be a lot easier for the few who do.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[HiThere]

Excuse me, but what is he clearly guilty of? Please cite a New Zealand law, not a US law.

If the action was committed in New Zealand, and was not illegal there, what are the possible grounds for ANY action?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[MrBigInThePants]

You are potentially being very naive about the way reporting CAN be done at times. I am not saying this is a good thing, but I am going to challenge you dumping on the reporter like you have.
More than likely her list of questions was pre authorised as is the case in many instances - even more likely when there is "national security" (lol) involved. Almost certainly by the FBI themselves.

So use some empathy here and play a game with me: You are the reporter.

You have three main choices:

1) Try to get through the best and most important questions you can that will slip under the veto of the interviewee and FBI.

2) Not do the interview at all and have no information desemniated.

3) Run a piece about how some retiring FBI guy did not want to answer your questions and hope someone will care about that.

Your call.

I am not saying this situation is optimal. I am just pointing out that firing shots at a reporter from your armchair is a little weak.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Bucc5062]

Nothing like a small slap to wake up my reality mode...

4) Ask my own questions, get cut off from further questions, and possibly get fired.

I wanted add that as a viable choice, but not one I'd first consider. I feel it would be a blending of 1 & 3 with more leaning towards one.

4 would be true to journalism in what I feel is its roots.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

NPR is not even close to good reporting. NPR is a propaganda machine that people actually pay to listen to!! How much more wonderful can you get with self funded propaganda in a pretty red dress?

Re: Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Name something that hasn't been.

It isn't good justification to disband every organization ever formed, because shit will happen.

I nice and tall strawman you're building here.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

wait, NZ got not much help in the past and so NZ helps the US for anything?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the answer is perpetual mediocrity in reporting?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[metrix007]

KFC is still extremely tasty. You just started believing a change in ownership resulted in a change in the recipe and quality of the food. It didn't.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[metrix007]

He operated servers and conducted business in the US. Extradition.

Not to say I agree with it.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[MrBigInThePants]

lol.

No. This is what's called reality.

Trust me, I am an terminal idealist too. But you need to separate your idealistic world from the real world.

Especially when passing harsh judgement on people who probably don't deserve it.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[MrBigInThePants]

I have to say you took the slap very well.

I was expecting a small "girly" shriek and sobbing. ;)

4) would not be possible. There would likely be a written agreement in place.
Or the interviewee would have made it clear that any off the paper question would result in the end of the interview immediately.

And the piece might even have to have been preapproved. Who knows?

Certainly not me which is why I used the word "potentially". You may be entirely correct.

Wow...

[allaunjsilverfox2]

You have to wonder who WASN'T involved with Kim Dotcom at this point. It's absurd the amount of time and money that was used to investigate this one man. Personally, I've always felt he was a bit egotistical. But man, When goverment(s) bring THIS much force to you, you kind of deserve to be a bit over the top.

Re:Wow...

[game kid]

They didn't just feed the troll. They gave him all-you-can-eat steak and caviar, catering for a party of five, and coupons for tomorrow's main course.

Re:Wow...

[LordLucless]

Have you seen Kim Dotcom? Catering for a party of five would only just cover it.

Re:Wow...

[chris.alex.thomas]

hahahhahahaha, well done sir!

Re:Wow...

[lightknight]

Not at all. If you consider than the NSA was used for business interests, as opposed to government (national security interests, they tell me), it makes perfect sense.

Why not spy on everyone, learn their IP in development, and come out with something similar, possibly ahead of even the original product's release? You'll notice the US changed its patent laws from original inventor to first filer (lol). And why not use, illegally, the NSA to find future defendants? They're all criminals, right? So who cares? True, it's a minor detail, in that they haven't been convicted yet, and you'll be committing a crime to discover a crime...arguably committing a greater crime, covering it up, to bring to light a lesser crime...but hey, this is about money. The NSA has become an enforcement arm of the MPAA / RIAA.

The whole 'National Security / Terrorist' thing has been a cover for business interests getting illegal peeks into the competition. It's anti-free market (theft / fraud, violation of market rules).

Not only for "Terrorism"

[surfdaddy]

See how quickly the scope creep sets in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Now it's being used for COPYRIGHT violations!

What the FUCK has happened to my country?

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[0123456]

Don't worry: someone will be along shortly to point out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so this could never have happened.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[gmuslera]

Not just your country, UK, NZ, Sweden and others are either in bed with US or in their pocket. Is not enough that US is in fact a plutocracy, a lot of other countries that claim to be democracies aren't either, or are following orders of the same plutocrats (either by being bribed, extorted, scared, or being just retards). US is just out of hope, everything was given to the real rulers in a silver plate for decades, but would think that in some of those countries population opinion mean something.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[AHuxley]

Re What the has happened to my country?
What was once in books and magazines via people like http://cryptome.org/2013-info/06/whistleblowing/whistleblowing.htm is now much more public.
The openness of telco networks, US/NZ/UK politics, US trade groups, favours and sharing is not something new.
What is interesting is how open the NZ side is. The public/press know knows enough to look way beyond what could have been passed off as basic NZ telco/police efforts.
The next question is how will departments (and trusted contractors) within the US/UK/NZ/Aus/Canadian spy networks respond to their coveted generational access been revisited in yet another very public way.
Eastern Europe/South America does provide some history on the prospects for the press.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[Anonymous Coward]

or being just retards

ireland in da hizzouse...

[sadly]

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dont protect The Economy, you must be a terrorist. Think of all the lost revenues!

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[c0lo]

See how quickly the scope creep had set in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Earlier than Jan 20 2012 it has been used for COPYRIGHT violations!

What the FUCK has happened to my country?

Fixed those verb tenses for you.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to answer those overeducated idiots is to point out that government isn't a logical entity.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[TheReaperD]

Jamie Dimon paid his bribes *ahem* ... I mean donations to the powers that be (both democrats and republicans) and Kim Dotcom's enemies did the same. What's the confusion?

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[chris.alex.thomas]

exactly, it's a non-physical entity.....

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 9/11/2001 the USA has spent about $4 Trillion on terrorism. To be fair just over 3000 people were killed by terrorists and a argument could be reasonably made that with some modest measures that we could have contained terrorism equally to the present and suffered little differently regards terrorists than we have. An even better argument can be made that the efforts we made were worthless as the terrorists were for the most part pretty ineffective and honestly they were well aware of and didn't use the networks that survailence applies to. As to Lightning it killed over 15,000 in the USA during the same period. In the same period deaths due to the security efforts may have been a bit higher. Based upon the lunacy we are seeing the real terrorists are the state security agents! They reserve the right to conduct assault, battery and even murder to protect themselves, but obviously we citizens don't rank as worth the effort to protect. Every moral principal and tennant of freedom is to be sacraficed to these State Sponsored NAZI's.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[meta-monkey]

And I thought recent slides showed they could monitor VPNs, too. Basically, if you have ever torrented anything, you're already busted.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[nine-times]

The idea of a "slippery slope" is not inherently a logical fallacy. There's such a thing as a fallacious use of a "slippery slope" argument, but it's only a fallacy because you're claiming that there's a slippery slope when the slope isn't actually all that slippery.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's annoying how many people think that any argument that fits the description "slippery slope" is immediately false. I partially blame the popularity of this website's https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com short description when you hover the mouse over, but it's been going on for longer. A slippery slope argument is fallacious when it does not provide adequate evidence on why the consequences would occur; but if it does provide evidence and solid reasoning then it's a sound argument.

Not just for the terrorists.

[steelfood]

Funny how the justification for the program was all about the terrorists. Now, we find out that it wasn't just used for terrorists, pedophiles, and drug traffickers, but also for people the copyright lobby dislikes.

And yet, I find myself completely unsurprised. How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason for the establishment of a pervasive security state was not 9/11 but "battle of seattle" which happened 1999 and completely caught the government off guard. 9/11 was the excuse they needed to create a massive surveillance network accross the whole country to make sure it never happened again. Why do shit holes like Detroit or some podunk oil town in North Dakota need anti-terrorism control centers or whatever? They don't need them for al-Qaeda but for anarchists, union organizers, environmentalists and assorted other proft-threatening lefty types. Seattle put the fear in the government and they spent the last 10 years making sure if something like OWS pops up it gets put down fast.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Pseudonym Authority]

Did they actually target pedos with PRISM? Surely they would have told us if they did; after all, `if only ONE child is saved....'. Many are disillusioned by the War on Terror, and many like to light up every once in a while, but everyone hates sexual deviants. It would be the perfect PR move. 90% of those against the spying programs would be pushing for an even larger program.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

You need to read more history. I mean REAL history, not the lies they shoved
down your throat in high school.

None of this surveillance+governmental abuse stuff is new. What IS new is the scope with which surveillance
can be done now, due to technological changes. The "machine" can now be more efficient than ever before.
The efficiency is really the only new thing here. All the rest is an old story. However, the end of many such stories
often features the fall of empire. Read "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky for more on this idea.

Could it happen in the US, the fall of empire ? Buddy, it is ALEADY happening, like a house of cards
falling down in super slow motion video. Look at the true stats on the US economy. Look at how the US
is HATED in much of the world. Look at how the US has become a bully which uses power instead of
finesse to attempt to achieve goals. Truly the show in the US is run by idiots, and smart people know this
is the case because it is painfully obvious if you watch actual events rather than mindlessly consuming
propaganda. It's not Obama's fault though -- Obama is just an errand boy for the swine who really run the show,
just as Bush was before him.

Re: Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a sense, they probably did. A number of prosecutions for leaders of US neo-nazi and hate or separatist groups ended up as pedo cases, because that's prosecutable and, for some reason, linked to cult-like followings. The FBI tools for catching pedos are basically the same, but with warrants... but who knows if there wasn't some inter-agency sharing that helped point the FBI to the right places to look for admissable evidence, without that help making its way into court?

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TapeCutter]

Mate, it didn't start in 1999, nor did it start with Nixon in the 70's, or McCarthy if the 50's, it's been there forever and all sides do it if given a chance.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TheReaperD]

It already happened for Occupy Wall Street. I find it extremely unlikely that it isn't being used against other forms of political dissent as well. They're just being more subtle about it... for now.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TheReaperD]

I'm not old enough to have been there but, a friend of mine that was part of the protests in the 1960s. One of the things he mentioned that caught my attention was that in the late 60s there wasn't 'the Women's rights protesters' and 'the black protesters', etc. The groups supported and worked with one another to achieve their goals. Then, new people started joining their groups. He stated that they stood out as they always had their dues ready on time and always in exact change. And once they came in, they started infighting between the groups that eventually led to the groups separating. At the time he believed these were government agents and in the last couple decades evidence has come out the the FBI was involved in counter-intelligence operations against protesters during that era.

If this is all true than this is just the next stage against freedom of expression in this country. :-(

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[0111 1110]

And yet, I find myself completely unsurprised. How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers

Some years ago I returned from a trip abroad with some generic drugs in my luggage. The US customs guy searching my luggage noticed them. He told me that I should stop buying foreign generics because they were used to fund terrorists. I asked him if he seriously believed that or if it was just something he was supposed to say. He replied that he seriously believed it. So I think the generic drugs = terrorism line has already been crossed by our government.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Over and over again.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of stuff is probably still happening in a more precise way. Its much easier to infiltrate a community without the telltale signs when you can just tap all their communications without a warrant. Imagine if intelligence agents could control multiple accounts and start trolling when they find someone their algorithms think will be a nuisance. I have noticed certain types of comments will break apart a debate really quick, even if it had value.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, you should see how the surveillance system got started over here in the UK. Read this and weep.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[cdrudge]

Why do shit holes like Detroit or some podunk oil town in North Dakota need anti-terrorism control centers or whatever?

Have you been to Detroit recently? Their own police union tells people to stay the hell away.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, there's "freedom of expression" and then there is plotting to overthrow the US government. What was the ideology of those groups at the time? And if they were planning a revolution, was the FBI right or wrong to protect Americans by acting? The FBI also infiltrated right-wing extremists like the KKK, so they're equal-opportunity when it comes to dangerous crazies.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[meta-monkey]

For now. But it never stays that way. Right makes might, after all.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Col. Klink (retired)]

"The feds didnâ(TM)t just infiltrate and disrupt dissident groups; they made sure the groups knew that they were being infiltrated and disrupted, so activists would suspect one another of being police agents. In effect, COINTELPRO functioned as a conspiracy to defeat subversive conspiracies by convincing the alleged subversives that they were being conspired against."

http://www.alternet.org/books/united-states-paranoia-how-fbi-spied-and-lied-so-conspiracy-theorists-would-sound-crazy?paging=off

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[nine-times]

How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

This is a very valid concern. Part of the problem is that the concept of 'a terrorist' is actually not very far from the concept of 'a political dissident' or 'a revolutionary'. The concept of 'terrorism' is not well defined with clear boundaries. In a general sense, anyone who uses tactics to elicit fear as a method of political opposition could be considered a terrorist, even if those tactics are not strictly violent. What's the difference, really, between a 'terrorists' and a 'freedom fighter'? If the United States' beloved founding fathers were around today, wouldn't the British call them 'terrorists'?

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[nine-times]

Well of course, if it hasn't been done already, it's the next step. I believe pedophiles were the claimed reason for the British to attempt Internet filtering.

So first they say, "This isn't being used to spy on regular citizens. It's just for national security and going after terrorists. We're not interested in anything else, so if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about." A lot of people will go along with that, since nobody wants terrorist to kill people.

So next they say, "Well we have all this data sitting around, and we could allow police access to it, and they could use it to catch pedophiles. You want to catch pedophiles, right?" And what, you're going to say no? You're going to defend pedophiles?

So eventually they'll say, "Well we have all this data sitting around, and police have access to it, so why not use it to catch all kinds of criminals? I mean, would you rather hamstring the police for no reason whatsoever?"

That's how the slippery slope works.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TapeCutter]

I was born in 1959, and started HS in 1970 (semi-rural) Australia. Yes, they were all loosely aligned, collectively they were known as the "civil rights movement", they were fighting for blacks right to vote, women's rights to equal pay, the end of conscription, the right to contraception, and later in 70's gay rights. Western governments regularly infiltrated these groups with the aim of disrupting their operations and neutering their influence.

MLK and his followers were the moral leaders of the movement, which started in the US but quickly spread through the western world. Their Ghandi like approach to civil disobedience in the face of public beatings by police and bystanders alike shone a harsh light on society, most decent American's were rightly disgusted enough to get off the couch and join them on the streets. TV played no small part in the success of the movement, there's a famous clip where some cops start throwing people into a paddy wagon, "each with a superfluous whack of a nightstick", the crowd spontaneously burst into the now well known protest chant the whole world is watching.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TapeCutter]

Agree, Liberty vs Safety is not a zero-sum game. That's why Western spying is ok, but Chinese spying is an act of war, right?

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TapeCutter]

I known nothing my commandant, nothing!

But seriously, you're right. Same "chilling effect" is now in play with the NSA scandal, many people now believe the NSA are omniscient and this tends to make them act as if "god is watching". Detaining that reporter at Heathrow and shredding the laptop at the Guardian's office had nothing to do with the files themselves, it was a blunt warning to the press delivered directly from a "high ranking official" to the editor over the phone, specifically; "You have had your fun, now give us our stuff back".

Oh heads will fall

[Anonymous Coward]

so many of them.

Re:Oh heads will fall

[AHuxley]

Does NZ really have the staff numbers to clean house like that?
Their best and brightest work around the world and it would be hard to track all their past relationships/contacts/loves/any corrupting new sympathies.
People new to NZ are a risk unless cleared by the USA for very unique language skills or past war zone help.
Some people are totally useless due to their close links to other countries spies at any generation.
So you are left with a short list of smart people with histories going back years in NZ, who want to work for the gov with many restrictions and less pay wrt to the private sector.
A lot of interviews of teachers, family, lovers, friends to see if they fit in and the US will clear them too.
ie so short staffed the paperwork got lost and it was all legal as and when presented.

Re:Oh heads will fall

[c0lo]

so many of them.

Do you predict an Earth quake so strong?
(otherwise, unfortunatelly, I can't see what makes you believe that).

As a kiwi

[Mistakill]

I'm upset, and yet not surprised.... sigh

Re:As a kiwi

[Anonymous Coward]

Mate, make friends with your local iwi, and hopefully you can head to their hills when the defecatory material hits the rotary oscillator. Children of the mist and all that...

Follow the money

[taniwha]

What's interesting is that our Prime Minister effectively admitted in parliament (by refusing to answer in a situation where "no" would have been a far better answer for him and one he would have given had it been true)just 2 days ago that the GCSB (or NSA wanna bes) have been funded by the US to the tune of millions of dollars.

So what did they buy? probably a Prism to put in our fibre access to the rest of the world. And I guess enough of a back channel to send it all to the US. I can see now why the second pacific fibre was nobbled because they wouldn't accept the use of Chinese infrastructure - wouldn't do to have some other country's backdoors in the routers rather than the US's.

Children

[symbolset]

Here we learn the value of ethically compromising the Vice President of the US, "Hollywood Joe" Biden, with campaign funds that amount to a trivial fraction of the advertising budget of a "content provider". That gives you private access that you can use to sell your ability to sculpt the empty minds of the populace to achieve desirable campaign objectives (fear of your opponent and his platform, adoration of you and yours) for the politico in return for certain valuable consideration like appointments of your former employees to posts as US Attorney (McBride) or influence over the enforcement of intellectual property law and foreign diplomacy (Dotcom, Swartz). These executive permits run so deep that they affect even the most secret arms of the US intelligence community. The US version of Agent 007 (Licensed to kill) becomes a spy for Steamboat Willy.

The question that remains is how the Intelligence Community, formerly possessed of great self-respect and pride, would sink so low as to be such a puppet to tools that in a byegone era they would be the puppetmaster of.

Perhaps they should reqrite their ad.

[whoever57]

In the advert on /. page for this story: "Spiceworks, easy to use network monitoring." Post Edward Snowdon, they should rewrite their advert.

Re:Perhaps they should reqrite their ad.

[knarf]

No they should not. Network monitoring means the same as it always did. Just like hacking still means the same as it did before the term got hijacked. There'll be quite a few hackers using network monitors at this moment. Most of them are doing their job, making sure that the network does what it is supposed to do. Some of them are doing their job, attempting to snoop on the network traffic.

You don't rename a butcher knife just because it has been used in a crime, do you?

Re:Perhaps they should reqrite their ad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, our network admins installed iPrism a week after the Snowden leak. Talk about an unfortunate name for a web monitoring solution.

Re:Perhaps they should reqrite their ad.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't rename a butcher knife [wikipedia.org] just because it has been used in a crime, do you?

Languages evolve. If a significant number of English speakers begin to use 'butcher knife' to mean 'any bladed instrument used in commission of a violent act', then that is what 'butcher knife' henceforth means.

Re:Perhaps they should reqrite their ad.

[meta-monkey]

You don't rename a butcher knife just because it has been used in a crime, do you?

You do if that crime was committed against Important People. Then we start calling it a "Child Raping Terror Knife."

Spying on Congress?

[Esion Modnar]

Imagine what might happen if one of the revelations-to-be is evidence of spying on members of Congress? Maybe this is suspected by said members, and while this might anger them, they would rather the "revelations" to be kept secret. A secret kept secret is power. A secret revealed forces action in ways that are not preferred.

After all, burning gas in an engine produces useful work, burning it outside just produces a loud bang.

Re:Spying on Congress?

[maize]

I don't see this trend reversing itself any time soon...

Re:Spying on Congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice

"On June 19, 2013, Tice claimed while being interviewed that the NSA had spied on Barack Obama while he was a senator, along with monitoring federal judges, ranking military officials, and other members of Congress, saying he himself had seen and held papers ordering such actions.[12][13]"

Re:Spying on Congress?

[Pseudonym Authority]

Scrunch that tin foil even tighter: what if the intercepted information was used to manipulate Congress, and thus public policy, directly, or to influence elections? Senator Smith called in a few favors from old army buddies to win his district (the incumbent was found to be addicted to scat porn after a ``hacker'' broke into his email), so he has to pay back his friends in the intelligence community by attaching a rider to a certain bill to buy some more $500 ``toilet seats''.

Re:Spying on Congress?

[Zargg]

After all, burning gas in an engine produces useful work, burning it outside just produces a loud bang.

Best car analogy ever good sir!

Re:Spying on Congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the system is used to spy on Congress. Is there any place more obvious or useful to the administration? And having captured enough of the day-to-day dirt of politics to take out any member of Congress who might vote to oppose the spymasters, it should not be much of a surprise that none do.

Re: Spying on Congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a variation on an old gunpowder analogy: powder burned in the hand flashes uselessly and burns the hand, but confined in a tube it does work. The Masons used it (Pike mentions the analogy early in Morals and Dogma).

Re: Spying on Congress?

[Esion Modnar]

"FORCE, unregulated or ill-regulated, is not only wasted in the void, like that of gunpowder burned in the open air, and steam unconfined by science; but, striking in the dark, and its blows meeting only the air, they recoil and bruise itself. It is destruction and ruin. It is the volcano, the earthquake, the cyclone;--not growth and progress. It is Polyphemus blinded, striking at random, and falling headlong among the sharp rocks by the impetus of his own blows." -- The Twelve-inch Rule and the Common Gavel, "Morals and Dogma"

Was not aware of this analogy. Thanks for the reference.

Re:Spying on Congress?

[Cassini2]

The NSA is the new J. Edgar Hoover. They are impossible to stop. They have files on everyone.

Worse, what is their to stop the NSA from simply making something up? or saying they had something, even if they didn't?

Re:Spying on Congress?

[meta-monkey]

Why bother coercing congressmen? You don't have to rape the willing. Just negate anyone who runs who isn't a true believer or a useful idiot.

No words to describe this other than

[Anonymous Coward]

Assfuckery of the highest order...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wait, what?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If I am reading it right, it is just circumstantial evidence based on the NZ documents using the term "selecrtors" with respect to real-time data collection. But no actual mention of NSA programs.

After the DEA and IRS were found to have access plus the boondoogle with the presidential airplane over europe and the revelation that the decision to detain Miranda came directly from the office the UK PM James Cameron, I am completely ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the reporting, I just want to make sure there isn't any more concrete proof besides what may be terminology common to multiple LE agencies.

Re:Wait, what?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Lol, I meant David Cameron. They haven't sent a xenomorph after Snwoden, at least not yet...

Re:Wait, what?

[unitron]

It could be worse.

What if they sent Kirk Cameron after him?

Two US House members ask identical questions

[Required Snark]

Here is a video of two members of the US House asking identically worded questions during a congressional hearing on copyright. Unfortunately the sound volume is very low, so it is a bit hard to hear.

http://youtu.be/JtVbHBIyFKw

They don't even bother to check the script they are given. It's not even as professional as books on tape or someone blindly reading the news.

They may be elected officials, but they certainly are not working for the public. To make it worse, you know that they sold themselves for next to nothing. A few hundreds of dollars of campaign contributions and an empty promise of fundraising is all it takes. They're not just whores, they're cheap whores.

Re:Two US House members ask identical questions

[meta-monkey]

Well, I heard you an buy a whole field for 30 pieces of silver.

YAY !! MORE SNOWDEN !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring it on !!

Re: No one forced him to....

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the same as saying no one forced you to use gas for you car, from a gas station.
Where else are you going to get it. If this is the only possible way to communicate for
business or non-business uses then we need to know that it isn't being filtered through
every government that claims they need to know everything that is going through it.

Devil's Advocate

[Joining Yet Again]

Firstly, there's no difference between "law enforcement" and "national security" except in the eyes of egomaniacs who think that there brand of crime investigation (e.g. "terror" - seriously, could you get any more emotive?) is Totally More Important and should receive all sorts of Special Dispensations.

Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.

Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.

The copyright cartel are also leeches and ought to be just as thoroughly investigated for their dirty bribery and lawyering practices.

A pox on all their houses.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascist cunt.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[_merlin]

Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.

If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style? If it's a criminal matter, there's a process for obtaining and serving a warrant. If it's a civil matter, there's a process for bringing a complaint. Neither was followed.

Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.

He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business. He took down files when requested. He complied with relevant laws. By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity

Such as?

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Joining Yet Again]

If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style?

Because the copyright cartel, which should be treated with as much contempt as he has been treated, infiltrated the justice system, and demonstrated such an incredible level of hubris that it managed to fuck up its own efforts.

He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business.

It doesn't matter how often you argue that, it doesn't make it any more accurate. He has no right to the proportion of income he gained from illegal activities, especially not once he'd become aware that his service was being used that way.

By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.

They don't deserve any of the income gained from facilitation of drug trades, as long as drug-trading is illegal (let's assume for a moment that it shouldn't be legal). But unless you're arguing that ziplock bag manufacturers make a hefty profit from drug trades, the two aren't comparable.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Joining Yet Again]

I call for an end to excessive investigative powers in the name of the "national security" bogeyman, and I suggest that powerful leeches be dealt with whether or not they act with the support of the powers that be, and I'm a "fascist cunt"? Elaborate.

This is a spat between two sets of businessmen who want to make money distributing other people's work. While you're taking sides, the system continues.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[_merlin]

He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business.

It doesn't matter how often you argue that, it doesn't make it any more accurate. He has no right to the proportion of income he gained from illegal activities, especially not once he'd become aware that his service was being used that way.

It doesn't matter how often you argue against that - it doesn't make you any less wrong. He operated a service that had potential for legitimate and illegitimate uses. I used it maybe twice to shift encrypted zip archives of music projects I was working on with friends. I never downloaded infringing material from it. I remember it being plastered with ads. I didn't click any of them, but I'm pretty sure those ads are how Dotcom was making his money.

Last time I checked, online advertising wasn't illegal. In fact, Google and others are praised for their advertising-based "free to play" revenue models. Dotcom wasn't making money off copyright infringement, he was making money off advertisements on a file sharing service that had substantial non-infringing uses. No-one was actually directly making money off copyright infringement on MegaUpload. Well, unless someone was uploading encrypted media, then selling decryption keys or something, but then the use of MegaUpload is incidental anyway.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Kim Dot Fraud operates illegal file sharing sites *because* they're illegal.

think about it - if by some magic, the laws were changed tomorrow and file sharing was completely 100% legal, then Kim would shut it down, and start searching for a different illegal activity to engage in.

Kim's not on your side, he's not on my side, and he's not on their side either. All he does is take. Frankly, I'd be fine if he ends up rotting in jail. That's where parasites like him belong.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[_merlin]

You've launched an emotive personal attack and presented no evidence. I don't believe Kim's on my side, I think he's just opportunistic. But if his file sharing network really was illegal as you claimed, he could have been charged on summons. He still hasn't been charged with any crimes. You're the one making accusations - the onus is on you to provide evidence. Put up or shut up.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Joining Yet Again]

He operated a service that had potential for legitimate and illegitimate uses.

That still doesn't make it okay to knowingly profit significantly from the illegitimate uses. I'm not sure what's tough to understand about this. You live in a society - behave like it.

Last time I checked, online advertising wasn't illegal. In fact, Google and others are praised for their advertising-based "free to play" revenue models. Dotcom wasn't making money off copyright infringement, he was making money off advertisements on a file sharing service that had substantial non-infringing uses.

I can't believe anyone can be so intellectually dishonest. People are interested in sponsoring a site because eyeballs have been gathered by making in-demand content available. Therefore the quality of the content is part of the commercial exercise.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Joining Yet Again]

Who says he couldn't have been? Lots of people get off because the police/courts fail to follow process, rather than because of an absence of evidence. This is perfectly okay, as protecting the integrity of the justice system is more important than locking up individual nasty people, but it doesn't mean the man's not broken the law.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

* protecting the integrity of the justice system is more important than locking up individual nasty people *

Are you, Joining Yet Again absolutely idiot?
Protecting the juctice system? The organization, that is used by the oportunistic and greedy people to to their dirty work? The hand of the NWO?

Re:Devil's Advocate

[tr3x]

The copyright cartel are also leeches and ought to be just as thoroughly investigated for their dirty bribery and lawyering practices.

I recommend reading Tim Wu's 'The Master Switch', about the history of information economies & how much political manipulation goes on to control information channels.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[meta-monkey]

Then shut down Taco Bell as complicit in marijuana trade.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[lexman098]

That still doesn't make it okay to knowingly profit significantly from the illegitimate uses. I'm not sure what's tough to understand about this. You live in a society - behave like it.

Well in that case we should shut down all gun manufacturers and no one gets guns at all. They're *definitely* knowingly profiting from crime. Except that we value our freedoms and understand that there's a balance between freedom and preventing crime. This is part of a society.

I can't believe anyone can be so intellectually dishonest. People are interested in sponsoring a site because eyeballs have been gathered by making in-demand content available. Therefore the quality of the content is part of the commercial exercise.

It has nothing to do with quality of content. As far as I understand the advertisers pay per view and/or click. Less demand for content is less eyeballs and the advertisers don't pay as much. If megaupload doesn't consume their advertising budget they'll supplement elsewhere.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income."

Because of course that's all file upload services are used for.

Where can i Download this wonderous application

[Anonymous Coward]

ok This "prism application" im a bit lost here are we talking about the intersil prism wifi stuff? forking a fibre cable with with a prism? if its the latter Checking the outbound illumination intensity gives that away.

Re:Where can i Download this wonderous application

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, chances are it's already installed on your home PC, Mac, cell phone, tablet, and walls.

Seems perfectly logical in hindsight

[Anonymous Coward]

The human natural instinct is grab any advantage to win. These bastards can't be trusted to self regulate. It starts off with terrorism and child molesters. Then it's a perfectly logical move to "monitor" government officials in case any of them feel the compulsion to talk to journalists. Then it's a small hop to monitor your general populace, in case you know undesirable elements are lurking about. You can't find the needle without a haystack.

Man, Obama is the biggest fraud in modern history I reckon. We all swallowed his bullshit hook, line and sinker. And if you think Obama is bad wait till the Clintons get back into the White House. Bill was the guy who wanted the "Clipper" chip in every computer, phone and fax machine. And he is the one who repealed Glass Steagull and got Wall Street on the feeding frenzy.

We all know what's coming. All the fucking democrats and liberals will have a massive hardon for Hillary, completely ignoring any flaws or past behaviors. While the republicans (along with the tea baggers + libertarian nutjobs) will present a candidate so completely repulsive that an intelligent person will have to choose between not bothering to vote or just hold down the vomit and vote Clinton. NSA + Private Defense complex + Wall Street will carry on building the Police State. And people who otherwise would like to post under their normal usernames on Slashdot will be too scared and post as AC instead.

Re:Seems perfectly logical in hindsight

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! The only solution is to vote because only they will reduce government and return our hard earned to us!

Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

You might like to investigate the Anton Vickerman prosecution which included secret withnesses. That almost certainly was a criminal misuse of the data too.

What the NSA is doing is buying the loyaly of local security agencies by giving them info in exchange they turn on their own populace and spy on them. In court the US Spook knows more than the defendant about the true nature of the evidence.

All very soviet union if you ask me.

http://pastebin.com/WAUm4dbi

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[sosume]

Funny how the US always criticizes other countries for human right violations and references their constitution as a safeguard against government abuse. Meanwhile, state agencies are collecting information on the entire internet population and handing it out to foreign governments to aid oppressing their population. The irony!

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[erroneus]

I wish that was funny.

I no longer take the human rights thing seriously when coming from my country. Until they start following the constitution, this country is completely dysfunctional. In the past, when something was declared/ruled as unconstitutional, it mean "you're done. cease doing it." For some reason, it doesn't mean that any longer. Now it's just "yeah? so?"

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

This NSA scandal is also a good comeback for the Chinese whenever Obama thinks it's a good idea to blast them for their human rights.

Where would you rather live? a country which detains you in secret and uses secret evidence against you, and maybe throw you in gitmo... Or a country which everyone knows spies on you, and isn't ashamed for the world plus its own citizens to know about it?

Serious food for thought really.

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[AlternativeIdeas]

Why do you hate America?

;-)

Re: Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I have country option number3 please?!?

PRISM being used for Copyright?

[sg_oneill]

Considering Copyright isnt even supposed to be a criminal offence but a civil one in any SANE legal system, deploying military extra-judicial surveilance to police it is completely out of control.

Really , this shit has to stop and people need to start actually monstering their reps to let them know who actually is supposed to be in charge, US.

Re:PRISM being used for Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright under Title 17 does include criminal offenses. Not sure where you got that copyright is civil only. There are various levels of infraction, some of which ARE criminal.

Re:PRISM being used for Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being told you're the one in charge doesn't actually make you be.

Re:PRISM being used for Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really , this shit has to stop and people need to start actually monstering their reps to let them know who actually is supposed to be in charge, US.

Last time I looked, they already were monsters.

Re:PRISM being used for Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

He specifically referred to sane legal systems.

I don't think this is about media companies

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. and their cronies just want to make it as hard as possible to share data without them being able to peek into it. Dotcom's company did make that possible and they did not do as told, so it was decided it had to be destroyed. They found some media companies who were willing to claim MegaUpload was used to share content they own the copyrights to and government agencies did the rest.

The Lives Of Others

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone, if you haven't seen it I highly recommend the movie 'The Lives of Others'. Its a little harrowing in places but we've already been down this road in East Germany. The US must NOT become (the prior) East Germany writ large.

Re:The Lives Of Others

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. already go much further than the GDR ever did. They just do it more efficiently, with less people, thanks to new technology.

Your PM got into power by email leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous head of the party resigned due to email leaks to be revealed in a book..... gee I wonder which foreign power did that, let me guess, the NSA? Gee I wonder why the current head is so pro-NSA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Brash

"During a hastily-called press-conference on Thursday 23 November 2006, Don Brash announced his resignation as the National Party leader, effective from 27 November. Speculation regarding his leadership had foreshadowed this move, and the publicity had had a negative effect on his political party. The publicity came to a head just before the scheduled publication of a book written by Nicky Hager containing leaked emails . "

See how it works? Leak against the people you want out of power, or threaten to leak and keep them compliant against the wishes of voters.

Even party leaders in his own party are threatened with prosecution of leaking GCSB crimes:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/peter-dunne-i-did-not-leak-gcsb-report-5458414

The leadership of 5 eyes is shaped by leaks from the NSA to be pro-NSA. Democracy is a joke at this point. Do you think the USA doesn't have its share of NSA leaks? Shaping its political class to be pro-NSA?

Better re-examine a lot of those US political scandals because many involve data coming from emails.

Re:Your PM got into power by email leaks

[pinkstuff]

Nicky Hager seems like he is more against broad spying powers, so to me it would be a little strange for him to side witht he NSA to leak specific information in order to remove Don Brash - although it wouldn't entirely surprise me either way.

The Dunne issue is very interesting, why should anyone be prosecuted for leaking information about the innapropriate use of spying? If the government has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear right?

Re:A National Security Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you've got that completely wrong. Are you trolling?

It's not a National Security Matter, it's a National Party Security Matter.

Follow the power!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's interesting is that our Prime Minister effectively admitted in parliament (by refusing to answer in a situation where "no" would have been a far better answer for him and one he would have given had it been true)

What's up with that? Why not flat out lie and/or commit perjury? Has he been lax in bribing the Attorney General or the Kiwi equivalent?

He really should take a leaf from his friends across the ponds. You corrupt the Attorney General with some insane executive powers and get him to lie about how he messed up using them to congress, and presto: he no longer is really fast and furious about prosecuting perjury.

You have to get everyone in the same filthy boat if you don't want them to poke around in the bile.

Nobody.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who says he couldn't have been?"

Nobody.

Now, please answer the question ACTUALLY ASKED.

"[i]f his file sharing network really was illegal as you claimed, he could have been charged on summons. He still hasn't been charged with any crimes. You're the one making accusations - the onus is on you to provide evidence. Put up or shut up."

Re:Nobody.

[Joining Yet Again]

The question asked was why he wasn't charged on summons. The answer is: because law enforcement fucked up with procedure, going for a macho raid, egged on by the copyright cartel the government shares a bed with. Please follow the thread.

I don't know how you do it in your country, but common law countries don't need to hurry with bringing charges unless someone's actually sitting in custody. And there's such a string of abuses of procedure that I'm not sure it's worth it now.

But, but, but, ....

[tommeke100]

They said it would only be used to track terrorists and only after suspicion?

Of course not! Why let something cutting edge like PRISM go to waste on a couple of said terrorists when you can just use it to track everyone pro-actively?

don't worry

[stenvar]

They are the good guys! Evil America must have made them do it!

Tenuous connection

[Aidtopia]

I want to be outraged about the use of PRISM for copyright enforcement, but I made the mistake of reading the article. It seems the connection between the surveillance of Dotcom and PRISM is rather tenuous.

If I'm understanding the article correctly, it seems somebody noticed that the term "selectors" was used in setting the parameters of the illegal surveillance, and somebody else noticed that "selectors" is exactly the same term that XKEYSCORE uses--OMG! Um, yeah. That doesn't mean XKEYSCORE or PRISM was actually involved. It might just be that "selectors" is part of the standard terminology for signals intelligence.

How far back does PRISM go?

[Ragnarok89]

You know what I can't stop wondering? Remember a few years back, all those stories about undersea cables being cut? http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=undersea+cable+cut

I realize that these cables are not part of the US infrastructure, but I can't help wondering. Especially now that we find out that the UK has an internet snooping facility in the Middle East: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/08/22/2228230/report-britain-has-a-secret-middle-east-web-surveillance-base

Am I being overly paranoid? Quite possibly. I'm just saying that my disbelief can only carry the weight of a finite number of coincidences.

relieve

[Anonymous Coward]

that makes it all ok then... see, we CAN trust our politicians...

Re: No one forced him to....

[BitZtream]

Last I checked, no one had broken SMIME or PGP with proper key sizes.

Communicating securely is trivial. Your email client will most likely do it for you if you add a private key and certificate that you generate to it.

If the government got your communications, you were doing absolutely nothing to hide them.

This is why Larry Ellison bought Lanai -

[Anonymous Coward]

a defensible homeland when the house of cards finally falls.

Redactions

[Anonymous Coward]

The redactions in the document are some kind of sick joke.
They happily redact the email address of the people issuing these absurd requests, but they leave Dot Kom's and other executives's passport numbers and other personal information in place. In short, the redactions are there only to serve the government. For everyone else, they have a policy of "ah, screw them".

No, 2014 will be nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

People have figured out that no matter who they choose, they are going to be betrayed.

hm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all coming together now, the game's rigged.

Broken link

[TapeCutter]

the whole world is watching