Slashdot Mirror


NSA Infected 50,000 Computer Networks With Malicious Software

rtoz writes "The American intelligence service — NSA — infected more than 50,000 computer networks worldwide with malicious software designed to steal sensitive information, documents provided by former NSA-employee Edward Snowden show."

264 comments

  1. Belgium is a NATO member by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The NSA was conducting a military operation against an ally.

    1. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nice observation there. What country doesn't spy on allies? Are you that naive?

    2. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by NettiWelho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice observation there. What country doesn't spy on allies? Are you that naive?

      AFAIK it is illegal for Finnish government agents to stage hostile operations inside foreign nations.

      Related

    3. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by shentino · · Score: 4, Informative

      NSA is a subagency of the DOD and is headquartered inside a military base.

    4. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Angeret · · Score: 5, Informative

      Didn't stop them from scaring seven shades of shit out of the Russians before, during and after WWII though.

    5. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are aware that the Director of the NSA is Keith Alexander, an active duty 4-star general in the US Army, right? If you look at the previous NSA Directors, you'll probably notice a curious pattern.

      --
      Do you even lift?

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

    6. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Informative

      For contrast, Finland has a population significantly smaller than New York City.

      And the original question was "What country doesn't spy on allies?"

    7. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      And the point is -- does it matter what is illegal for the Finnish government to do inside foreign nations, when that's basically like envisioning Queens and Brooklyn invading Jersey?

    8. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Holi · · Score: 1

      The NSA is most certainly a military organization. You should really read the Puzzle Palace and learn how the NSA was started.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it does matter that some countries do have moral standards. Unlike, as displayed by the article, USA and UK.

    10. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by NettiWelho · · Score: 2

      And the point is -- does it matter what is illegal for the Finnish government to do inside foreign nations, when that's basically like envisioning Queens and Brooklyn invading Jersey?

      Well, Finland is bordering a nation with largest landmass in the world whose population has historically posed an existential risk to Finns with wars fought on the most centuries since pre-800 AD. It is in the interest of self-preservation to know what your neighbour has parked near your border and what he's up to if a successful suckerpunch will lead to the complete collapse of organized national defense.

    11. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      New Yorkers do that to people all the time.

    12. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      For contrast, if Finland was a state of usa, it'd be 5th in area and 23rd (if i remember correctly) in population.

    13. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you look at the previous NSA Directors, you'll probably notice a curious pattern.

      They're all white men?

    14. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Finland is bordering a nation with largest landmass in the world whose population has historically posed an existential risk to Finns with wars fought on the most centuries since pre-800 AD.

      Existential risk? Since 800 AD? Wars? Um, Finland has not existed at all as a country during most of that time.

    15. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      New Yorkers are all talk.

    16. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by NettiWelho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Existential risk? Since 800 AD? Wars? Um, Finland has not existed at all as a country during most of that time.

      Yes, existential risk to Finns .
      Finnic tribe habitation. 800 ad Finnic tribe habitation. 912 ad, also,
      Earliest conflicts with Russians during existance of written records.

      And by the 14th century we arrive at this

    17. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      New Yorkers are all talk.

      that's why they never shut up. new york and new jersey and detroit can all go to hell really.

    18. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Some of them smell too.

    19. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by connor4312 · · Score: 1

      An outstanding example of a non sequitur, congratulations!

    20. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what the other countries want you to think.

      Countries don't really have moral standards. Just budgets.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      New Yorkers do that to people all the time.

      And now you know why we picked an island to call New York.

      So we could keep them with their own kind.

    22. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Informative

      AFAIK it is illegal for Finnish government agents to stage hostile operations inside foreign nations.

      It is illegal for the NSA to do what they are doing too, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them.

    23. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spying is not hostile.

    24. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, go piss up a rope.

    25. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by NettiWelho · · Score: 2

      spying is not hostile.

      When you do it by means of actually attacking something, be it a computer system or a person, it is.

    26. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by c0lo · · Score: 2

      With allies like this, who the hell still needs enemies?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    27. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      You can also get a feel for the direction the NSA want to go with offensive cyber attacks too via the "US Cyber Command"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    28. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also get a feel for the direction the NSA want to go with offensive cyber attacks too via the "US Cyber Command"

      Cyber Sex, obviously. Who else uses that word now that we're out of the 80's.

    29. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know which other country does something like this and neither do you (although the UK would be a decent guess, I think). Without proof you can say pretty much anything, like that Russia is gathering people's thoughts thanks to a dedicated team of mind-readers. It's all about who gets caught doing something illegal and that's exactly what happened here. US can't just turn around and say "It's not true. It's all just accusations". This is it - they've been caught red-handed and now they must repent and pay.

    30. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I didn't think the NSA considers US citizens as "allies". More like "terrorists with no known links to proven terrorists".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    31. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You, SirMa'amOrFido, owe me a new keyboard. :)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    32. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Countries don't really have moral standards. Just budgets.

      The NSA budgets clearly are a cesspool of immorality, and it does not help that the U.S. has large trade deficits. The NSA does not deliver any tangible goods for the amount of cash and imported material they burn.

    33. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries don't really have moral standards. Just budgets.

      No, it's "nations don't have friends, just interest" (...or "Les états n'ont pas d'amis, ils n'ont que des intérêts.") -- de Gaulle

    34. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, existential risk to Finns .

      Ah, so you don't care about the nations, just the historical groups of people?

      In that case, those Americans, those Native Americans, they have quite the reason to be pissed at the Europeans. For reasons nowhere near as old as your Finnish arguments.

    35. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's non sequiter? He saying contrasting things, so i thought i could too.

    36. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's what AC meant when he said you can also cop a feel.

    37. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true in the sense that countries are not moral agents but legal entities. It is not true in the metonymic sense, in which 'country' refers to the group of people who make political decisions on a national and international level in the name of the country. As these people are not without morals (they may be without your specific set of morals, but they have morals nonetheless), in this sense it is not true that countries are without morals.

    38. Re: Belgium is a NATO member by zevans · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like your summary there. Interesting that the two countries doing terrible things because groupthink and budget ... are the two with the most thoroughly broken FPTP electoral systems.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    39. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries have borders, governments have budgets.

    40. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And the original question was "What country doesn't spy on allies?"

      You mean the blatant diversionary tactic? It's not "spying on allies", and anyone who suggests that is either uninformed or disingenuous in the extreme. It's the breadth and pervasiveness and capability.

      The NSA literally wants to collect every bit of information from every person it can, across the entire planet. It taps the personal cell phones of politicians long before they rise to top leadership positions (Merkel). It has much of the world's communication infrastructure running through it's borders.

      So lets go ahead and say that the intelligence chief for Romania wants to spy on Americans. Is he going to be able to spy on the entire country the way the U.S. spies on Brazil or Germany? He could build some "radar towers" and try to spy on the the wireless communications in neighboring Ukraine or Hungary - but how's he going to do that to Washington D.C.? The United States is extremely isolated geographically compared to most other countries.

    41. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "For a number of years the British intelligence service - GCHQ – has been installing this malicious software in the Belgacom network in order to tap their customers’ telephone and data traffic. The Belgacom network was infiltrated by GCHQ through a process of luring employees to a false Linkedin page."
      The GCHQ is not the NSA. The NSA might have gotten data from it but looks like it was the British that did the actual tapping.
      BTW intelligence gathering is not considered a military operation. You do not go to war of spying if you did the US and the USSR would have long ago gone to war. Spying on allies is also not uncommon. I promise you that France has in the past spied on the US and has done things like record the sound signatures of US subs and ships and evaluated US aircraft and systems that they have gotten their hands on. The reverse is probably also true. Before WWII but the US and the UK had war gamed fighting each other. The US Navy and the UK Navy saw each other as potential rivals up to the early 1930s when they saw the Nazi Germany and Japan as there rivals. The US saw Japan as a rival by 1900.
      In other words, "same as it ever was". It only seems new to people that do not know history,

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    42. Re: Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the problems with corruption Italy has? Thats not a FPTP system. I'd argue National Closed list PR is far worse than FPTP (I actually like AV)

    43. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nations' only exist in people's minds.

    44. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are hunting voices. How do I recover my processing power?

    45. Re:Belgium is a NATO member by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      Yes it does matter that some countries do have moral standards. Unlike, as displayed by the article, USA and UK.

      To not spy is immoral. Spying on enemies prevented WWIII. Spying prevented the Cold War from going hot and killing billions of people. Spying on friends in the current era keeps them honest, so to speak.

  2. Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wasn't this exactly what the USA declared to be considered an act of war, that would justify retaliation with conventional weapons?

    1. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably. You have to remember that the government has different standards for others than for us. We don't care if we violate international law. We only care if others violate the rules we set (be they laws we set or otherwise).

    2. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You saw what happened to Iraq? You really want to stand up to those psychopaths? They will stack us naked.

    3. Re:Act of war. by Nyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably. You have to remember that the government has different standards for others than for us. We don't care if we violate international law. We only care if others violate the rules we set (be they laws we set or otherwise).

      Yes, The "Do as I say, not as I do" standard.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    4. Re:Act of war. by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wasn't this exactly what the USA declared to be considered an act of war, that would justify retaliation with conventional weapons?

      And the people with political power are the ones who stand to get even richer if it does start another war (digital or conventional). They don't care who else dies or if the economy as a whole goes down the shitter as long as they make money. The US's defense budget is HUGE, how much of that goes to private contracts? In 2011, $374 billion went to private contracts, 15 times greater than any other US federal agency.

    5. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wasn't this exactly what the USA declared to be considered an act of war, that would justify retaliation with conventional weapons?

      Exactly, all members of the NSA are guilty of high treason. Think about it, over the last several decades they have worked quietly behind the scenes to deliberately weaken all encryption algorithms and computer/electronic security.

      Every time a hospital or the electrical grid gets hacked and taken out of service, every time a rival hacks in and steals classified information from a government computer or trade secrets from a corporate one, every time someone's identity gets stolen, every time someone's computer gets infected by a virus, the NSA directly contributed to the ease by which this was done. That is IMHO directly supplying aid and comfort to enemies of the people.

    6. Re: Act of war. by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      No need to get to war. Just reject all government agreements with that hostile country, put your case in the ONU, La Haya or any other international entity related with this and rally the other affected countries to do the same, even put a trade embargo like the ones love to put. At the very least will serve to see which governments are in the bed with US in this, and would give their citizens a reason to kick them in the next election, as we know that the US people won't do that with their own government, no matter how much more corrupt will be disclosed that is in the following weeks/months.

    7. Re: Act of war. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That would be impossible to happen. No other country has the military capabilities to forgo US aid in case of invasion from any number of outside threats. Russia could take most every European country should something like that happen and they were isolated from half of the western allies (Including European countries who didn't give in).

      Besides, the economic problems that would arise would be enough to stop most countries from doing that. It really just isn't realistic for it to happen.

    8. Re:Act of war. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Exactly, all members of the NSA are guilty of high treason.

      Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Learn it, love it, live it.

      In other words, no, the members of the NSA are NOT guilty of treason.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fucking hilarious when you're the stacker!

    10. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Specific section] of the US Constitution. Learn it, love it, live it.

      Read and follows parts of the US Constitution? What do you think we are? The NSA....oh yeah.

      In other words, no, the members of the NSA are NOT guilty of treason.

      Can't we just declare war against the NSA or something, then? Hell, it'd be enough to just get some vague Congressional approval of force now days. Or we could just confiscate all their equipment until they can prove it wasn't purchased with drug money. I mean, they've got a secret budget. For all we know, it's a secret [drug money] budget! :)

    11. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ".........what happened to Iraq? You really want to stand up to those psychopaths?"

      War and conflict makes psycopaths of us each and all. Its indellible; it spoils your future.
      So think how bad your reality must be to choose that as a resort.

      So, true enough from one POV that we sure opened up a pandoras' box of 'freedom' there; and the stacking continues... Enduring means ack'ing the reasons to fear but resisting letting them control your decisions, define your options...

      And if you can believe that a counter-intuitive approach, tho often harder, has better odds, then you only need look over the globe and you'll see lots of little guys raising their fates for the better.

      From Ireland to Basque regions to the Balkans to South Asia and ultimately, the Mid-East; you will see examples of people following a proven means of standing before power and attaining more self-reliance.

      What these movements share in common is: their leaders are the fruit from a tree grown and nursed and nourished by Gene Sharp.

      It's abot righteous struggle, in a jihadi-ish kind of way. But the major difference being that this path is completely peaceful.

      It is about reason over re-action and overwhelming/undermining institutional weaknesses w/out needing violence.

        It works; which is why GS books and related materials are blacklisted world-wide by authoritarian governments. (yea, right)
      It's about how ideas can conquer arms by pulling the feet out from under them.

      The Power-brokers can't win, but they don't care who they hurt, enriching the war-mongers while they're at it. You have reason to fear, but you are not alone. And their first goal, isolation, is not practicable

      Be of some hope. Real people win in the end, painful as it may be.
      The military of mightiest nation on earth
      has established beyond all doubt their incapacity to succeed in both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism.

      The scholarship of West Point is, in its own way, a brilliant cast of objective warriors. Yet,
      it strikes me as ironic that DoD fails at CT (JSOC) by its creating more than it can eliminate (whack-a-mole)
      and fails at COIN (CIA/NSA) before ever getting to compound the interest of its final, fourth step;
      in its "efforts to establish a political environment that helps reduce support for the insurgents and undermines the attraction of whatever ideology they may espouse"

      Another case of "Best and Brightest"?

      It is this admission of incapacity that supports the basis in building a case for drones.
      Because the brass can't handle the sour taste, the alternative that is lotsa nakidness in stacks.

      This is the future of things i suspect. We are a management issue and our minders will resort more and more to smart devices in their waging war.
      A taliban-vs-meshedBotCloud telemetric'd scanning system. Lethal, of course.

      Though you won't have to worry. I'ts X-Ray vision lets you stay clothed and you'll be instantanously incinerated to economize on stacking.

      Fare well, come on out of your basement once in awhile for a breather. Engage.

    12. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Side Note and Refs:

      It is probably this very reason, the inadequacy of projecting military might, that has driven the growing panopticon of gov't and private intelligenc operators.
      The Military has been reduced to an extraction machine; it serves no political ends. Only opportunism and corruption.

      Paired to a means of remotely controlling the events the intel describes, that circle completes the square in the wet-dreams of the puppeteer.

      Some Refs:
      David Galula's classic work, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice

      http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JanFeb06/Petraeus1.pdf
      http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume4/april_2006/4_06_2.html

      Learning Counterinsurgency: Observations from Soldiering in Iraq
      "General John R. Galvin observed that "[a]n officer's effectiveness and chance for success, now and in the future, depend not only on his character, knowledge, and skills, but also, and more than ever before, on his ability to understand the changing environment of conflict"

      I suspect that its in the hubris of thinking understanding matters less in the ability to shape the environment of conflict regardless of outcome. More $ more time will make some bad thing better regardless of origins or fault!

      security/protection, local trust, accepting a 'federal' presence, better services,
        Petraeus issues Afghanistan COIN guidance
      By Kevin Baron Published: August 2, 2010
        his co-authored 2006 Army counterinsurgency manual,
      http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/FM_3-24.pdf
      http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.113197.1280774784!/menu/standard/file/COMISAF's%20COIN%20Guidance%2C%201Aug10.pdf
      www.fpri.org/enotes/200704.mills.afghanistancounterinsurgency.html
      tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-BuildingAfghan.pdf
      https://frdl.train.army.milcatalogview100.atsc6a489d10-160c-4301-90d5-377e5fe38156-13111677814413-24.2chap8.htm/

    13. Re:Act of war. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? The US is the only one with the muscle to back it up. This is business. Don't be looking for any "morality" in that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:Act of war. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "

      That's exactly what weakening the encryption systems of the United States' own infrastructure has accomplished, however inadvertently.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    15. Re:Act of war. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Muscle is no longer required these days. Cyber attacks and drone strikes are well within the budget capacities of wealthy individuals, never mind nation states. It may not have happened yet, but one no longer needs an aircraft carrier to project power around the world.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    16. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're suggesting that the NSA are protected by the Constitution, you may want to consider why they are and yet, constitutional rights and protections are prohibited from others.

      Neither they nor you can pick-and-choose when, where, and how to apply legal standards - that's the role of the courts, and the laws themselves.

    17. Re: Act of war. by Corbets · · Score: 1

      The GP is right; whether they disregard parts of the constitution themselves or not has no bearing on their own constitutional protection. Even convicted criminals (the NSA is only accused by some) are protected by law.

    18. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the rest of it: No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      Overt act, which means if that was inadvertent, no dice on treason. (Plenty of other things though.)

       

    19. Re: Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even convicted criminals (the NSA is only accused by some) are protected by law.

      And the one person whose accusation would count is the Attorney General, head of the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, this post is held by the Fast and Furious serial perjurer Eric Holder who will not lift a finger against his corrupt cronies in government agencies.

    20. Re:Act of war. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's that annoying word "adhering"... You need to show allegiance to a specific, declared enemy in time of war to prove treason.

      Criminal, yes. Betrayal, yes. Treason, no.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    21. Re:Act of war. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Muscle is no longer required these days. Cyber attacks and drone strikes are well within the budget capacities of wealthy individuals, never mind nation states. It may not have happened yet, but one no longer needs an aircraft carrier to project power around the world.

      I would have said "aircraft carrier or ICBM", but point taken.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    22. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can't commit treason in the USA with covert acts?

    23. Re: Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't the UK win the Falkland's war without military assistence from the USA?

    24. Re: Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, ... many, if not most, of our economic problems... started the day we signed a free trade agreement of death with the USA ... that is true for Canada where I grew up... that will be true for South Korea where I live now.

      Note that the former South Korean president signed such a free trade agreement behind closed doors last year, which resulted in one of the cenators actually running up to the podium and throwing a granade at that said president (who survived).

      I guess it's a moot point, since South Korea is fighting an American war with North Korea, and USA will never let Korea re-unite because it's too convenient to have a military base that close to China, but not have a border with China (so we all just blame North Korea, while isolating them from their relatives across the border)... the most ironic part is that young Koreans have to sacrifice 2 years military service on the DMZ for the sake of this American war, while the US soldiers get to hang out far from danger, and occasionally fly around spending millions of dollars a day on jet fuel, what a joke.

      Yes sure, most governments are evil... but as evil as the USA ? not a chance.

    25. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we just declare war against the NSA or something, then? Hell, it'd be enough to just get some vague Congressional approval of force now days. Or we could just confiscate all their equipment until they can prove it wasn't purchased with drug money. I mean, they've got a secret budget. For all we know, it's a secret [drug money] budget! :)

      I don't think the CIA is going to share any of their drug smuggling profits, or tolerate any competition.

    26. Re:Act of war. by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Not the "declared enemy in time of war" part - there's an "or", and that's on the other side.

      However, that troublesome phrase does indeed prove that Snowden has definitely not commited a treasonable act.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    27. Re:Act of war. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      That's the rub -- if the US were to successfully defend that Snowden committed treason, one could easily claim the NSA (and complicit engineers) had also.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    28. Re: Act of war. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I didn't know the Falklands was militarily on par with Russia, China, Germany, Pakistan, India, or any other country with similar or better population and resources as England has.

      I also didn't know that my statement was so vague that comparing Russia's ability to pown European countries if they lost support from the US and half the other countries in Europe was the same as saying the UK would fall if one of it's territories on a freaking island decided to be independent.

    29. Re: Act of war. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. you really are screwed up in the head. Do you actually think living under a dictator is better then what you have now? I mean seriously, look at North Korea.

      Oh, wait what is that? You do not think south korea would be anything like north korea if the UN hadn't stepped in? Well, that would be ignoring history. The same tin pot dictator wanting to unite korea is the same one that has been running the north. And no, the north is not screwed up because of UN sanctions, both china and Russia ignored those sanctions up until the fall of the iron curtain and china's desire to be given trade status with the US.

      I'm sure you posted anonymous because you wouldn't ever want such stupidity ever associated with your name or any online identity. Not only have you ignored history, you have ignored the present and have some drug induced concept of reality that I am not sure even exists in books praising leftist ideals.

      BTW, South Korea has had better than a free trade agreement for most of it's existence. They enjoyed favored trade status which is like free trade other then it didn't remove restrictions on US products being sold in SK. All the free trade agreement would have done is removed barriers for US goods being sold in S.K. markets. As for the free trade with Canada, you are an idiot as Canada has benefited vastly more then the US has over the ordeal through the years. There were some areas of problems but the Canadian dollar is or was finally worth more then the US dollar specifically because of the free trade agreements benefits to Canada.

    30. Re:Act of war. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Some damn fine posts and links. It'd help if people debating, discussing, arguing would read some of this stuff and further background. Howsomever...

      I'm short in the vision department, see no good exit within current stance. What I see needful would be sweeping reformation of foreign policy, clear statement of intel policy, abolishment of bulk of Patriot Act and the Homeland Security apparat - the former several agencies were mostly doing fine, what they lacked is always what they, and the CIA always lacked: clear inter-communications. People tend to forget that DCI was not only agency head but by the Nat'l Security Act of '47 (and relevant revisions) director of all nat'l intel - fine on paper but had no teeth lacking budgetary and clear admin powers. Historically many of the intel bungles were due to squabbles over turf and rice bowls, aided and abetted by Congressional meddling for political games and gains. In a way, DHS was not so much a declaration of war on terrorists as on the American people.

      Funny, in the Sixties I could go to the airport, exchange cash for ticket, go somewhere. Now it's papers, ID, background checks, strip, scan and grope - a Stasi wet dream on steroids. Of course, we're so much safer than before. Aren't we? I mean, that's what all those cameras and DPI gear are for, right?

    31. Re: Act of war. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      IIRC US gave UK imagery, sigint, and some related intel (sub-surface sourcing.)

    32. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the rub -- if the US were to successfully defend that Snowden committed treason, one could easily claim the NSA (and complicit engineers) had also.

      If the impossible was true, everything would be true. Snowden didn't commit treason, even if morons like Dianne Feinstein and Bill Nelson have called it that. I'd trust a coin flip to run this country before Dianne Feinstein.

  3. Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought this was illegal? What can victims claim who lost data due to this?

    Are they allowed under the law to break it?

    1. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think anybody "lost data" due to this?

    2. Re:Illegal? by Angeret · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's good enough for the RIAA & MPAA to use the term, then it's good enough for the rest of the world.

  4. Business is business by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's reasonable to expect every intelligence agency to spy on anyone they can.

    Perhaps as regards governments the hypocrisy should be dropped, and caught spies simply traded for other caught spies as was Cold War custom. Business IS business, and trusting anyone, even "allies" (whatever that means) can be childish especially if they are penetrated by enemy operatives.

    How much we wish to restrain internal spying is another matter.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would you want caught spies back? They're the incompetent ones.

    2. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internal spying is a large part of how one tries to detect moles, which is an activity that increases in importance as the number, and variety, of secrets you try to keep increases.

      The idea that, "It's reasonable to expect every intelligence agency to spy on anyone they can," however is a problematic artifact of a world dominated by distrustful, and hostile, relations. The solution to that problem is obvious, although it's not politically or practically easy.

    3. Re:Business is business by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's reasonable to expect every intelligence agency to spy on anyone they can.

      Why is that "reasonable"? Shouldn't they be focusing their resources of groups/nations that present some threat to us?

      Business IS business, and trusting anyone, even "allies" (whatever that means) can be childish especially if they are penetrated by enemy operatives.

      Except that this hurts US businesses because now there will be more incentive for other nations (even friendly nations) to use something other than our products.

      Not to mention that "penetrated by enemy operatives" sounds more like a movie synopsis rather than a rational approach to international diplomacy.

    4. Re:Business is business by Nyder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's reasonable to expect every intelligence agency to spy on anyone they can.

      Perhaps as regards governments the hypocrisy should be dropped, and caught spies simply traded for other caught spies as was Cold War custom. Business IS business, and trusting anyone, even "allies" (whatever that means) can be childish especially if they are penetrated by enemy operatives.

      How much we wish to restrain internal spying is another matter.

      Nothing the NSA has been doing is reasonable.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:Business is business by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      What about the people whose rights are trampled on by this? How about we treat spying on allies as a serious crime for which heads will roll like they should.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's reasonable to expect every intelligence agency to spy on anyone they can.

      Why is that "reasonable"? Shouldn't they be focusing their resources of groups/nations that present some threat to us?

      The idea there is that (for example) Israel *does* present a nuclear armed threat to America because they have a set of conventional and nuclear capabilities that *could* threaten American interests. For this reason paranoid (professional intelligence) people in the US want to know all the details of what and where those capabilities are, and how they may or may not be used. The same goes for France, Belgium, Canada, etc.
      Of course it would be totally wrong and reprehensible for any of those allies to spy on America to try and gain the same kind of information--that would threaten American security and autonomy!

      The doublethink these fuckers won't even pause at is really quite something. (Captcha: Exceeds.)

    7. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that "penetrated by enemy operatives" sounds more like a movie synopsis rather than a rational approach to international diplomacy.

      It would seem that the NSA's approach to international diplomacy could be summed up in three words:
      "Don't get caught."

    8. Re:Business is business by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "Not to mention that "penetrated by enemy operatives" sounds more like a movie synopsis rather than a rational approach to international diplomacy."

      Such penetration was commonplace during the Cold War and no reason exists to believe it would stop since there is much to be gained from knowledge. International diplomacy should logically embrace the idea that there are "no friends or enemies, only interests" because it's really a bunch of different mobs cutting deals while vying for advantage.

      "Except that this hurts US businesses because now there will be more incentive for other nations (even friendly nations) to use something other than our products."

      Other nations are still screwed since no one is trustworthy. They can either buy from nations they don't mind monitoring them, buy from outright adversaries, or not give a shit and buy from the lowest bidder. They can also cut secret deals to share intel and benefit from monitoring. I highly doubt the spying was news to leadership, but it being made public requires some gesture be made.

      If other nations avoid US software, fine and better for most Americans since software diversity and competition are good. I lose nothing if other nations stop buying Microsoft software. I gain if they have the foresight (Munich, cough, cough) to embrace Open and Free alternatives. If they make more hardware, the market gains by competition and diversity. I get more choice. I win.

      If US companies want to assure potential customers their products are safe, they may submit them for audit. Perhaps the EU should have an Open software and hardware security audit process as a start.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a typical xtianism view of the world you have. Because xtians hate everyone, us normal people don't assume like you that it is acceptable for everyone else to hate everyone. Stop being like the USA xtians.

    10. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's reasonable to expect every intelligence agency to spy on anyone they can.

      It's reasonable to expect every child molester to rape any child he can get his hands on. But that does not mean that it's to be tolerated.

    11. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Any breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. I'm sure the FBI is driving over there right now to investigate.

    12. Re:Business is business by Karganeth · · Score: 2

      Your hand waving abilities are not as strong as you think. It's not reasonable to expect such behaviour. Regardless, it's not acceptable and that's what matters. I agree that acting shocked isn't going to help anyone's cause but something should be done to stop the NSA from being out of control.

    13. Re:Business is business by khasim · · Score: 1

      Such penetration was commonplace during the Cold War and no reason exists to believe it would stop since there is much to be gained from knowledge.

      Then you shouldn't have any problem naming two such incidents. So prove it.

      International diplomacy should logically embrace the idea that there are "no friends or enemies, only interests" because it's really a bunch of different mobs cutting deals while vying for advantage.

      Yeah. That's why we have that string of military bases along the US/Canada border.

      Seriously, that sounds like something from a movie. In the real world we do have friendly nations who are NOT going to attack us.

      They can either buy from nations they don't mind monitoring them, buy from outright adversaries, or not give a shit and buy from the lowest bidder.

      Really? Nothing about building it themselves? Or buying from a friendly nation that they trust NOT to spy on them like that? Those are the only options that you see?

      If other nations avoid US software, fine and better for most Americans since software diversity and competition are good.

      So cutting US exports is a good thing in your opinion? I would say that it was a problem.

      And why would the software from other nations be compatible with our software? And if it isn't then there is the problem with "lock in" and not much benefit from "competition".

      I get more choice. I win.

      Apple has been around for years and has a lot of money.

      And yet there are still times when dealing with a government agency or a private company that a Microsoft product is required.

      So why do you think that this situation will be improved by introducing MORE platforms that are intentionally incompatible?

    14. Re:Business is business by CAPSLOCK2000 · · Score: 1

      Just like it's reasonable to expect that one day thieves will break into your house and steal your TV.
      It doesn't make it right.

    15. Re:Business is business by tftp · · Score: 1

      Nothing about building it themselves? Or buying from a friendly nation that they trust NOT to spy on them like that?

      If if a nation cannot develop computer software then probably you shouldn't even bother spying upon them :-) But even if a target nation is not known for software prowess but still warrants spying (Pakistan, Iran?) they still have F/OSS that can be obtained from multiple servers, compared, reviewed, compiled, and code-signed. Unlike digging ditches, one programmer can supply software for unlimited number of computers, and there are 182 million people in Pakistan, 77 million in Iran - some of them just have to be good at coding.

    16. Re:Business is business by tibman · · Score: 1

      Because they know things.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    17. Re:Business is business by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. spying on allies is like molesting children now. Some of you people have a seriously fucked view on life.

      I don't know what else to say. This is definitely disturbing and I'm at a loss of the comparison other then to say it is seriously fucked up- not even close if you were using nukes to take out a mouse.

    18. Re:Business is business by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Why is that "reasonable"? Shouldn't they be focusing their resources of groups/nations that present some threat to us?

      Why wouldn't military allies pose a threat? Seriously, this is an incredibly naive view of the utility of intelligence. You think that a relatively small number of terrorists trying ineffectually to lob a few bombs is really the only major concern? Or even "partner/competitor" nations like China that have a single second hand aircraft carrier? No state military power is realistically going to start a full on war with the United States by attacking the U.S. mainland, and no non-state actor has the resources to realistically do all *that* much physical damage.

      But, military allies who oppose US preferences in trade deals can potentially cost the US economy billions of dollars. Massive unemployment and economic collapse is absolutely considered an existential threat to any state. And, yes, much of the day to day accomplishments of an intelligence agency revolve around knowing in advance what tariff rate an ambassador to a trade conference in going to support on potatoes from various parts of the world. Knowing who you can move a few percent, and who is a hardliner, is enough to change a deal. A few small changes in a trade deal can effect msaaive numbers of people, and the US is very aggressive about maintaining power through things like trade deals which seem incredibly boring, and often go unreported in the news here. In business, everybody is both a friend and an enemy. A potential supplier of customer, but also a potential competitor. The concept of "Ally" becomes very grey as soon as you take a broader view of international relations that "If we shoot at somebody, are we supposed to shoot at them?"

    19. Re:Business is business by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Then you shouldn't have any problem naming two such incidents. So prove it.

      This is retarded to even think but, okay. In the real world, a friend today can become the enemy tomorrow. Not to mention, we actually get most of our best intelligence from our allies, whether they wish to give it to us or not.

      Yeah. That's why we have that string of military bases along the US/Canada border.

      We have 70+ military bases and installations along the Us/Canada border from Washington in the west to Maine in the east. Here

      So cutting US exports is a good thing in your opinion? I would say that it was a problem. And why would the software from other nations be compatible with our software? And if it isn't then there is the problem with "lock in" and not much benefit from "competition".

      Why would it need to be compatible?

      Apple has been around for years and has a lot of money. And yet there are still times when dealing with a government agency or a private company that a Microsoft product is required. So why do you think that this situation will be improved by introducing MORE platforms that are intentionally incompatible?

      First of all, when the government began introducing computers into the common work environments, Apple was not a real competitor. MS work a hell of a deal with the government for licensing that Apple wasn't willing to do. Then along came Dell. Dell was able to put a PC and/or laptop into the hands of government workers for less than 1/3 the cost of an apple computer. Not to mention, at the time, Apple's OS sucked for ease of use. Today, Macbooks are becoming more prolific in government work, each of the 4 agencies I have worked with in the last 2 years were switching all of their laptops to macbooks and running windows virtually. It takes a huge amount of time, in many instances, years to migrate hardware and software. Hell for the FDA to approve the installation of a single piece of software took 6 months to get approved on my laptop and that was just Eclipse.

    20. Re:Business is business by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Why is that "reasonable"? Shouldn't they be focusing their resources of groups/nations that present some threat to us?

      The military definition of "threat" is based entirely on the CAPABILITIES of a nation/group, NOT on their intentions (stated or otherwise).

      In other words, EVERY other nation represents a "military threat" of one degree or another (yah, Somalia is a "threat" - a minute one, but not non-zero)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:Business is business by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Yes the UK and US have sold the world on Engima like units for crypto and told them to always trust the skilled US gov staff setting and testing US standards.
      Reality has now set in and many other contractors, nations, mil, groups within govs, cults, oligopolies, duopolies, cartels, faiths, criminals seem to be able to buy the same 'keys' for their own ends.
      The other aspect is who is testing all the countries crypto internally... how did all this US/UK crypto junk get passed the testing of top gov staff around the world for their daily political use?
      Can tens of nations with many billions in defence spending really keep trusted mil/gov crypto staff on that useless over decades?
      Nations have seen their embassy plain text in the press in the 1980's yet still go back to the same brands...
      Lets hope Snowden has allowed many nations to re think their use of expensive imported crypto junk and grow their own domestic brands.
      As for infected networks, lets hope a lot of admins rethink networking and understand air gaps.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    22. Re:Business is business by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "I am not a number. I am a free man!"

      "Information. We want information. Why did you resign?"

    23. Re:Business is business by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      So you can make sure they die properly.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    24. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wouldn't military allies pose a threat? Seriously, this is an incredibly naive view of the utility of intelligence.

      Isn't a good chunk of gathered intelligence being used for private commercial gain?

      Makes your statement look ill-considered, doesn't it?

    25. Re:Business is business by bmimatt · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny

    26. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible that every intelligence agency spies on anyone they can.

      It is also possible they don't.

      Other than your general outlook on life and the assumption that every country is like the US, you have no way to determine which of these is more likely, and therefore no way to determine believing which proposition is more 'reasonable'. Don't confuse hunches with reason.

    27. Re:Business is business by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Wow.. spying on allies is like molesting children now. Some of you people have a seriously fucked view on life.

      Don't be such a dumbass, Dumbass. You know perfectly well that he's attacking the "lots of people would like to do this so nothing to see here, move along" talking point. Same as bringing up slavery to rebut the "this has been around for a long time, so it's okay" talking point. Nobody's calling Clapper a slave owner or Alexander a pedo.

      But, again, you knew this already. So put down the faux butthurt.

    28. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business IS business, and trusting anyone, even "allies" (whatever that means) can be childish especially if they are penetrated by enemy operatives.

      Except that this hurts US businesses because now there will be more incentive for other nations (even friendly nations) to use something other than our products.

      This, of course, is the main reason that fascism and especially the economic fascism practiced in the US is incompatible with free-market capitalism. The government's military and imperial objectives, while providing direction and support for select markets, ultimately hobbles the creative markets that make for a vibrant economy. Cut the US military by 50-75%, use the savings to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and provide employment for our suddenly out-of-work soldiers, and let smart, creative people test new markets.

    29. Re:Business is business by dbIII · · Score: 1

      This is retarded to even think but, okay. In the real world, a friend today can become the enemy tomorrow.

      Only if you have very poor choices of friends - such as Saddam, or not listening to the warnings from Churchill that Stalin was a monster that could be fought beside but never completely trusted. It was that excessive trust and the shock of inevitable betrayal that resulted in the cold war.

    30. Re:Business is business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its reasonable to expect narcisist gangsters to do evil things, such as all governments try to do.

      This doesnt make it reasonable to accept it.

    31. Re:Business is business by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. and you don't see how that fallacy is problematic? I mean seriously, we have people who oppose liberal policies being declared racists simply because the president is black due to idiots thinking that shit is proper.

      The problem is the comparison is completely out of line with the reality of the situation. Its nowhere remotely close. It is like saying it is ok to claim gay marriage is like perverts raping women in the street when the fact of the matter is that no one is being raped and no one is getting hurt.

      The only intent of that line of reasoning is to attempt to label someone who opposed the point of view in a negative light by associated with molesting children or owning slaves. It is an invalid debating tactic that serves no purpose whatsoever in constructive discourse. It is what idiots bring to the table when facts are not on their side. It is saying that if you cannot win your audience with facts and logic, make them hate your opponents more then they hate you. Stop navel gazing and actually think about it for a minute.

    32. Re:Business is business by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if the US had been spying more on its ally Al Queda, back when they were arming them, 9/11 might have been stopped!

    33. Re:Business is business by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Lol.. and you don't see how that fallacy is problematic

      If you think those analogies are fallacies, you don't understand either term.

      I mean seriously, we have people who oppose liberal policies being declared racists simply because the president is black due to idiots thinking that shit is proper.

      No, you don't.

      This is why I shake my head with pity when I read your posts, Mr. D, because you come so close yet remain so far. Because you could have gone with what some right wing Democrats actually do: insist that anyone that calls the president "Barry" is racist. See what I did there? That's a valid comparison, based in reality, that has actually happened.

      It's faux butthurt, designed to derail a conversation while attempting to put the other person on the defensive through the clever use of flopping: pretending that some grave offense just occurred when anyone with two functioning neurons can see that that's not the case and the person is just faking it. Right wing Republicans pull the same crap when they pretend that anyone who says the word "teabaggers" is using a homophobic insult when it's a well known fact that Teabaggers came up with their own name.

      The problem is the comparison is completely out of line with the reality of the situation.

      Not in the slightest. It's showing the utter absurdity of the argument by applying the same line of reasoning with a different set of variables. Another case in point: take this article about a mother who kidnapped her daughter after losing custody and spent 19 years on the lam, internationally. Peruse the comments and you'll see plenty of people who are siding with the woman for no other reason than she's the woman. Because you know full well that if the kidnapper was a guy, these same people would want him arrested, castrated, shot, hung, drawn and quartered and then shot a second time.

      So, to get back to the original point: nobody is calling anyone a pedo, anymore than anyone is calling someone a slaver when slavery is used to rebut the "this has been done for a long time so it's no big deal" talking point.

  5. Roadmap needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Going forward, how can we nogotiate peace with the NSA? who can nogotiate on Americans behalf?

    1. Re:Roadmap needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Guy Fawkes

    2. Re:Roadmap needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Going forward, how can we nogotiate peace with the NSA? who can nogotiate on Americans behalf?

      Peace .. no peace..

      What is it you want us to do?

      Die

    3. Re:Roadmap needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going forward, how can we nogotiate peace with the NSA? who can nogotiate on Americans behalf?

      You mean get a government agency to start paying attention to the Constitution and our Rights as citizens, instead of using the war on terror as a blanket excuse to operate illegally?

      That'll happen right after we shut down the TSA. I use that agency as an example here, because much like the NSA, you had absofuckinglutely no say in its creation, or how it operates today.

      In fact, I'm not quite sure where you got this illusion that We the People would ever be given a choice to negotiate for our Rights.

      We don't. And we won't. That time has passed. We must focus on anti-terrorism at all costs, in order to maximize profits for warmongering contractors. That is all that matters now.

    4. Re:Roadmap needed by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, you focus on anti terrorism but it has been happening long before that.

      Some people claim the constitution is an archaic piece of paper which has long outlived its usefulness and should be reinterpreted as much as possible to get around it's limitations. We call these people the "living document" people who think reinterpreting definitions allows portions of it to change meanings as the needs of society changes. This is despite the fact that there is an amendment process and if anything actually did need changed, it could be using the amendment process. But the outcome is the second amendment being nothing but the military having the right to have guns and you and I can hunt, free speech zones (which was originally instituted by the democrats) equaling first amendment rights, removal of all religious displays from public view as the first amendment free exercise of religion, cops dressed like military assault teams having the right to kick in the wrong door and kill the occupants as being the forth amendment's right to be secure in your person, papers and effects. There are a lot more that has happened when we get away from strict interpretations of the US constitution.

      You may have only noticed this crap with the war on terror. But it has been around for a while before it. Your rights have been subject to interpretations for quite a while now and terrorism is only the latest if the move.

    5. Re:Roadmap needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want them to fuck off first, and then die. Is it too much to ask?

    6. Re:Roadmap needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'll happen right after we shut down the TSA. I use that agency as an example here, because much like the NSA, you had absofuckinglutely no say in its creation, or how it operates today.

      The TSA is a bad example. I recall, on Sept 11 commentary highlighting the inconsistent application of airport screening procedures by the patchwork of private security firms and the lack of standard background checks for the "rent-a-cops" at checkpoints. I recall, on Sept 11 calls for nationalization of airport security, and that is exactly what the TSA is. The TSA is exactly the structure "we" wanted and the media demanded.

      Worse, though, is that the local evening news never seems to have any trouble finding people at the airport happy to go on TV and say the latest restriction makes them feel safer. They didn't have any trouble finding people willing to say that re-admitting small pocket knives and cuticle scissors was reckless. This leads me to two hypotheses: either there is a vast, silent majority of Americans who relish the sort of freedom provided by submission, or there is a conspiracy of media to support the State. Neither of those is attractive nor promises a healthy future. I tend to favor the submissive theory over the conspiracy theory. I just have to figure out where those people are hiding and how to talk to them. I have yet to meet an actual human willing to speak up in favor of TSA.

  6. Criminals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So the NSA has committed illegal acts, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or whatever it is that they charge people with for "hacking."

    A "warrant" can't authorize this kind of access, because warrants for "everything" are void, per the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

    Now nobody can argue that they are nothing but a bunch of criminals.

    1. Re:Criminals! by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      Fear Not! Diane Feinstein is hard at work writing a new law to reform the NSA. And by "reform", I mean "retro-actively legalize everything they did, Constitution be damned."

      --
      Do you even lift?

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

    2. Re:Criminals! by TheP4st · · Score: 1
      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  7. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only surprising part is the quantity ... but then it's counting whole networks, not quantity of installs ...

    1. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are thinking quality not quantity. This isn't your typical spammers botnet where anything with a CPU is an asset

  8. Sounds expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate that my taxes paid for this.

    1. Re: Sounds expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, they didn't. It was borrowed money.

    2. Re: Sounds expensive. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they didn't. It was borrowed money.

      Which debt will be paid (interest included) with his taxes.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  9. Meh by tavi.g · · Score: 1

    For the sake of the argument, don't such agencies need tools/methods to do their stuff ? So they infected computer networks.. where's the similar outrage with common spammers, that actually do have a global impact on internet traffic / quality of service ? We're in 2013.. the Internet isn't safe. Anything networked isn't safe. What does it matter that you can now put (another) face on the big bad Internet Bad Guy ? I mean, really, they can be "activated with the push of a button" - what are we talking about here, networks with internet access ? Were the owners expecting them to be private or something ? I too dislike an orwellian future, but some things just aren't worth fussing over. If the internet was a pristine place full of trust and good will, sure this would be shocking news. But it isn't.

  10. So which systems were compromised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So which systems were compromised, number would help. More importantly were any Linux or Unix systems compromised ?

  11. Obama didn't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He read about it in the paper, just today.

    If you like your privacy, you can keep it. Period.*

    *ends 1/21/2009. Subject to approval.

  12. Low-hanging fruit by Chompjil · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    NSA targets Windows machines the most for obvious reasons This isnt exactly unknown news

    --
    People once told me 68K ram was all we needed,
  13. Remember "Rat" from "The Core" ? by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

    I'm flashing back to that scene here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UKUGZz5Hjw

  14. NSA's relationship to AV companies by Qrypto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did the NSA force AV companies to not track the NSA virus, then keep it "legally" secret?

    1. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by muphin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Long answer, no
      no all AV companies are US companies, IE Kaspersky...
      and even if they were some people involved would have leaked the info

      --
      It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
    2. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      I think the NSA has the technical abilities to simply avoid detection in the first place and, if something does get detected, it's as a generic botnet program.

    3. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kaspersky is as fucking US as you are the queen of England. It has a subsidiary, which is a US company, though.

    4. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have told them not to scan the recycled bin :D EXE files that run from the Recycled bin are obviously malwares but the AV are ignoring them. You have to deleted those exe files manually. Many malwares have obvious behavior pattern that would allow AV software to detect them without using any virus signature files. Example, using windows autorun, change registry to run at startup, use rundll32 to run, run inside recycled bin. However, the AV are not picking them up during the scanning. Usually, only experience users like me, knew where to find them and delete them manually.

    5. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software) was the hint at that within the USA.
      If in doubt change brands and try Kaspersky.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by cciRRus · · Score: 1

      Given their scale of operation, I'm sure they are more than capable of evading AV detections. It's easier to research and develop ways to go under the radar than asking for help from AV companies.

      --
      w00t
    7. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by oji-sama · · Score: 1
      --
      It is what it is.
    8. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long answer, no

      what's the short answer?

    9. Re:NSA's relationship to AV companies by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The stood up to Sony with the rootkit thing too - or at least they had got to the stage of their lawyers arguing a lot with Sony's lawyers before the news of the rootkit got into the press.

  15. State-Sponsored Terrorism or an Act of War. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    These are the two options of how to classify this thing. It is not really possible to get more evil in nature, just in scale.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  16. Make spying a Casus foederis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The best way to stop the NSA from doing such kinds of things is to make spying on citizens a Casus foederis in the NATO contracts.
    In case of ongoing spying, the attacked contries could defend themselves (hopefully with nuclear weapons).

    As the US seem not to care about other peoples' human rights , it would be probably the best way, to stop this totalitarian goverment and fashist country.

    1. Re:Make spying a Casus foederis by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That would deny other NATO nations the advantages of similar espionage. Not smart on their part.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Make spying a Casus foederis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case of ongoing spying, the attacked contries could defend themselves (hopefully with nuclear weapons).

      As the US seem not to care about other peoples' human rights , it would be probably the best way, to stop this totalitarian goverment and fashist country.

      Only if you want World War III to obliterate our planet -- because the governments that can afford the complex equip to spy are also the ones possessing nukes, and that would promptly retaliate alongside its nuke-armed allies...to which the original government & allies would nuke more of the US/allies... so on & so forth, until there's nobody left to participate and nuclear winter sets in.

      The USGovernment is perfectly willing to let innocent Americans be massacred alongside other innocents as long as no politicians are harmed; it is the one without regard for human rights, not the American citizens. That's the problem with most wars: the civilians are nothing more than pawns in a game of chess from the perspective of their military/government. :-/

  17. The Important Question most Americans are asking.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the latest on Honey Boo-Boo?

  18. These are the spasms before the end of empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US is choosing the path of aggression instead of the path
    of civilized behavior.

    This is a strategy designed by fools. If the fools responsible were the
    only ones who would pay for their crimes that wouldn't be so bad.

    But every American will pay for what a tiny minority of American swine have done.

    By the way, before you start in with your xenophobic redneck moron responses, I AM an American,
    and I see what is coming and I do not like it one bit. When the rest of the world has had enough
    of the US overstepping its bounds, all the US military power won't make a bit of difference.
    Economic sanctions alone can and will bring the US to its knees. If you don't believe this is
    possible, you need to read more history.

    .

    1. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by tibit · · Score: 2

      In spite of everything, U.S. is still a big country with a lot of natural resources. The only reason most of those resources are not being exploited is availability of cheap resources from elsewhere. Sanctions that isolate the U.S. will merely shift the opportunity inwards. There'd be a whole lot of growth of the industry. Yeah, there'd also be the environmental problems that it brings, but oh well, at the moment we're merely exporting them.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason most of those resources are not being exploited is availability of cheap resources from elsewhere.

      Yes, we have plenty of resources ... and the cost of all of them will rise significantly. And what reason would the owners of these plentiful resources have for flooding the market with them once we are cut off from the rest of the world? Keeping them scarce keeps their prices artificially high for the same amount of effort to harvest them.

      Wages won't go up, but everything else will. When the inflation starts getting out of hand most of the current population will have to choose between basic needs and paying their bills. The utility companies can't afford to run without getting paid. Banks, etc, can't steal what's left if the home owners can't pay their mortgages. Food - at least the food we still grow in the US - will go up due to scarcity and the fuel costs to get it to market.

      It's one thing to try and force a country like Iran into a low standard of living. Most of the population (aprox 75mil) never was in or near the middle class. The US population of 300+ million will not handle this type of slide very well. The US can take care of themselves, but not at a reasonable cost. All these gadgets we're addicted to are imports, and some of the largest employers are the technology companies that "produce" them.

      And let's not forget that the rest of the world will lose their largest client. That won't help their economies either. This doesn't end well.

    3. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In spite of everything, U.S. is still a big country with a lot of natural resources.

      That must be why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending billions to
      secure access to petroleum and rare earths it doesn't need.

      .

    4. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "redneck moron"

      I thought that we were suppose to support the "little guy." Nothing says "little guy" like "redneck." The term comes from the fact that they're out laboring in fields or on a construction site and have a "red neck" from exposure to the sun.

    5. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, in times past the US has been 100% independent. In fact, prior to WWII the US was very isolationist and doing just fine as an independent sleeper superpower.

      Sanctions wouldn't do shit.

    6. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Economically, the US is already on its knees. The fitness of the US economy is on par with Greece. The only thing holding it up is its reputation, and that is going down the drains really fast at the moment...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Plugh · · Score: 1

      Economic sanctions alone can and will bring the US to its knees

      Sanctions? Hardly necessary. To bring the US to its knees, all that needs to happen is for the Chinese to stop buying US Treasury bonds. Whoops....

    8. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      The funniest part of this post?

      The "anonymous" bit.

      ROFLMAO.

      -The NSA.

      --
      -Styopa
    9. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic sanctions alone can and will bring the US to its knees

      Sanctions? Hardly necessary. To bring the US to its knees, all that needs to happen is for the Chinese to stop buying US Treasury bonds. Whoops....

      Or selling electronics.

    10. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a Russian citizen I doubt. You know, the strength of US Dollar is based on the fact that it's the only currency exchangeable to petroleum, and every country that uses any other currency for this purpose becomes democratic. (Saddam sold oil for Euros, and his country became democratic, Lybia sold oil for Euros and became democratic too, Iran sold oil for gold and will surely become democratic immediately after Syria).

      And I fear that China will become democratic too.

    11. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Uh, in times past the US has been 100% independent. In fact, prior to WWII the US was very isolationist and doing just fine as an independent sleeper superpower.

      Sanctions wouldn't do shit.

      Isolationist? Oh, really?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    12. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by c0lo · · Score: 2

      As a Russian citizen I doubt. You know, the strength of US Dollar is based on the fact that it's the only currency exchangeable to petroleum,

      Fortunately, seems you are wrong on this account.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    13. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      The US is choosing the path of aggression instead of the path of civilized behavior. This is a strategy designed by fools.

      It is called "game theory". It is a virus that teaches that the only way to achieve a predictable result is to cheat, steal and lie. Because everyone else does.

      There are two kinds of people in this world, those who will lean into its principles thinking that (despite its ugly face) there is some shred of real science hidden underneath because of its (apparent) success in helping to model animal behaviors. But if Lassie played by the rules of Game Theory she'd leave Timmy down in the well because it would achieve a predictable result as opposed to the uncertain course of action where she'd have to try save him again, and might fail. If that makes sense to you then congratulations, you're a Game Theorist.

      And those like myself who see Game Theory applied by or to anything human as a mental disorder masquerading as a tool. One of our training wheels for disaffected hypocrites.

      The folks at Enron imagined themselves Game Theorists but it turned out they were just being assholes.

      Conspirational racketeering isn't so hot either because it leads to the formation of larger committees over time to help hide its existence and effect.

      I will always strive to be an unpredictable coefficient in any theory. My favorite sport is Drunkard's Walk Philosophy. You never know where you are morally speaking but eventually you find your way home.

      Why did NSA infect 50,000 computer networks?

      Lack of adult supervision. I really mean that.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    14. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

      As a Russian citizen I doubt. You know, the strength of US Dollar is based on the fact that it's the only currency exchangeable to petroleum, and every country that uses any other currency for this purpose becomes democratic. (Saddam sold oil for Euros, and his country became democratic, Lybia sold oil for Euros and became democratic too, Iran sold oil for gold and will surely become democratic immediately after Syria). And I fear that China will become democratic too.

      While this made an interesting point (of course only partially true), I think the post was intended to be funny. And it is!

    15. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2

      Uh, in times past the US has been 100% independent. In fact, prior to WWII the US was very isolationist and doing just fine as an independent sleeper superpower.

      Sanctions wouldn't do shit.

      Prior to WWII, the US contained a significant portion of the world's manufacturing capabilities. A lot of new and high-tech (for the time) devices were made in part or in full in the USA.

      Since then, the US has exported a significant portion of its manufacturing, to the point where it has not only not gained new manufacturing capabilities in the last 30-40 years, but it has actually lost manufacturing capabilities that it once possessed.

      As the GP stated, sanctions would bring the current USA to its knees, and rather quickly, I believe.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    16. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you are using the word 'democratic' as shorthand for 'bombed back into the stone age'

    17. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by tibit · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between an isolated country and a non-isolated one. At the moment, the non-isolated one is pursuing all avenues at keeping the costs down - that means globalizing manufacturing, resources, etc. If that weren't possible, you'd be looking at a quite different situation.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    18. Re:These are the spasms before the end of empire by tibit · · Score: 1

      The US can take care of themselves, but not at a reasonable cost. All these gadgets we're addicted to are imports, and some of the largest employers are the technology companies that "produce" them.

      Remember that all this money would stay within, and it wouldn't take long for the gadgets to be locally made. I'd think that there'd be a domestic tech-boom that would probably temporarily outshine the biggest of the Asian tech booms. U.S. was quite prosperous when manufacturing and mining was mostly local. Again, I'm not saying that it'd be manna from heaven. Places like Pittsburgh would probably quickly degenerate into their old dirty selves, and many new dirty manufacturing towns would pop up as well, and environment would be a big fucking mess for a while - when you're after basic needs, environmental issues sort of fade. If the sanctions were to be lifted, all this would come crashing down and we'd be arguably in an even bigger doo-doo than at the time the sanctions were imposed.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  19. 50k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I would imagine there's a whole lot more of windows installations...

  20. Reality check by Spiked_Three · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Haha, look at all the AC posts. You guys are fricken cowards. Like posting anonymously is somehow going to prevent the government from knowing who you are.

    Look, you give an agency the task of preventing damage to your country - that is what they are going to try and do, any way they can or have to. And lets be real, laws are just a game. Everyday we see how loopholes, misinterpretations etc are used to get around anything. You think ANYONE at ANYTIME expected GE, Apple, Microsoft to pay 0 taxes? And yet they do, year after year, because with the right efforts, all laws can be gotten around. Laws are what naive people follow, like religions (and religious laws).

    If you want the NSA/FBI/CIA to stop spying on everyone, abolish them. Then enjoy your free country for about a year, because that is as long as it will last.

    Otherwise understand it is a balance. A balance that people in those positions understand much better than the general public. Let them do their job.

    --
    slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    1. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Laws are what civilized people follow.

    2. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, look at all the AC posts. You guys are fricken cowards. Like posting anonymously is somehow going to prevent the government from knowing who you are.

      Not all of us have accounts or want accounts.

      We are not hiding like your tiny little Uentermensch brain imagines,
      we are simply doing what is convenient.

    3. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Tor, bitch.

    4. Re:Reality check by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Civilized people disobey grossly immoral laws. I suppose that Ayn Randians consider tax laws grossly immoral. :p

    5. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda more like I don't want some a$$hat troll from Seattle to know who I am, Mike.

      Sincerely, Anonymous Coward

    6. Re:Reality check by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There is no morality to it. The law says you have to pay the least you are obligated to pay and if companies or individuals can make that 0% without violating other laws, then it is the legal amount they own.

      The answer is not throwing your hands up and demanding the companies go to prison, it is in changing the laws they are using as loop holes in order to get away with it. Trust me, the IRS has very vindictive tax enforcers who have no problem throwing little old ladies into the street in order to get a few thousand dollars owed to the government. They also have no problem taking a few million dollars from a company worth tons more- all they have to do is freeze one of their bank accounts, take the money out, and be done with it. It isn't like these people or companies have armed guards standing in front of vaults that will defend the funds from IRS agents or anything. That would likely cost more then paying taxes if they had to.

    7. Re:Reality check by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I understand. I guess it would be easy to change computers and post from other IPs when your posting has too many down mods or posted too many stock replies to topics on your agenda lists.

      It is definitely harder to post from an agenda with a logged in account.

    8. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise understand it is a balance. A balance that people in those positions understand much better than the general public. Let them do their job.

      Hey. I'm an American too. With a mind. A mind strong enough to know that we were allowing them to do their job.

      I'm also wise enough to realize where this is going. What, you think that Obamacare "safety bot" floating over your head a decade from now is there to protect you? Have fun with your new healthcare plan. Should be "cheap" too with the State pushing those mandatory perks.

      Sounds insane? Yeah, almost as insane as the concept of a device like PRISM. Or the idea that it's not just a conspiracy theory anymore. Now, tell me how the fuck you're in a position to stop that insanity before you call it insane again. The Drone Wars are just beginning, and there are corrupt billions to be made, which you already have been witness to the insanity that money can drive.

      We gave an agency a job. To protect us. Not to abuse the fucking shit out of that power and offer tax breaks to those holding databases large enough to abuse the fucking shit out of. They don't even do the job anymore. It's now Facebook, Google, and Microsoft's job. It's been outsourced, and you're too ignorant to realize the NSA is merely the contractor.

      Don't tell me to let them do their job. Their job is not monitoring me, or the hundreds of millions of others that show ZERO reason to.

    9. Re:Reality check by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      haha, well played.

      I guess that makes sense if you are ashamed and/or embarassed about your position.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    10. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also makes sense if I simply value my privacy. The desire for privacy does not imply wrongdoing, embarrassment or shame. It is widely considered a human right and that human right is central to the ongoing debate on this issue.

      Another central theme in this discussion is the weaponization of information. I believe you are an ex-Marine, sir. My best friend was/is a Marine and I value your service to our country, sincerely. I can assume that you fully understand that the more you know about an adversary, the more intelligence you have about a target, the greater advantage you hold. The converse is true as well, so much of the intelligence/information game is about preventing your adversary from obtaining intelligence about you that could be used to attack you.

      I'm sure I don't have to tell you that unfortunately the world is full of bad people. Some of them are simply criminal or sociopathic and they really just don't care if they hurt other people for profit or even just fun. Some of them are very intelligent and technologically savvy. The latter sort is probably more likely to be found places like slashdot.

      I just don't feel like handing my whole life over to the whole world via facebook, flickr, twitter, or even a /. identity. It seems to me that it would leave me vulnerable if some psycho wanted to harass me or even attack my devices because he/she was outraged that I held an opinion that was different than his/hers.

      I guessed who you were by googling your /. handle and gauging the probability that someone would use the same name including the underline for a twitter account. A factor was that many of the tweets I read had a similar abrasive quality as your slashdot comment history. So I guessed.

      Then you told me I guessed correctly. That was a gift you should not have offered.

      At this point if I was some kind of lurking hacker jerk with even just clever-kid-in-his-parent's-basement skills and a desire to hurt someone, I could PWN you. (I am not that guy at all FYI; but you will have to take my word on that, I guess.) Said lamo could just post your contact info to 4chan as a be my personal army post with some bullshit story about your transgressions. Next thing you know you are getting 50 pizzas tonight all night long, or if they live near you they just vandalize your car or your house. Or if he/she has better skills and even worse judgement he spearfishes you with an email that looks exactly like an email from someone you know like one of your RC helicopter buddies and you click on the attachment or link and the trojan does its work on you; it loads a keylogger then all of your online account passwords are compromised or maybe you discover all too late that you are being watched through your webcam. This kind of $#!T happens all the time.

      People can suck.

      I kind of feel like I just fed a troll, but I'm not sure because the balance of your online identity indicates to me you are not simply a troll, just kind of abrasive in your expression. Also I feel like in a weird way this relevant to what we are talking about here.

      Maybe all of this will sound paranoid to some. Sadly it seems to me to be a more rational way of looking at online privacy with each passing day.

      I don't value my privacy because I have something to hide. I want privacy because there are people to hide from.

      You are right posting as AC won't protect me from government scrutiny. The unfortunate thing about the issue at hand is there seems to be nowhere to hide from the Five Eyes. If the mass surveillance apparatus becomes a tool of power wielded with bad intent, and who is to say it already hasn't...we are all fuct, and when I say us all I mean planet Earth. They are welcome to put that in my file.

      If you read this far, thank you for considering my shameful and embarrassing opinion, even if you don't agree with it, Mike.

    11. Re:Reality check by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      Well actually, forgive me, too bored to read your entire post, but;

      No, I was never a marine. I do not have a twitter, or facebook account, and I am smart enough to know those who have been tagging their friends in photographs on facebook for the last 5 years have done a wonderful job of priming the NSA facial recognition database.

      But, I have worked around and for the NSA. I have no false beliefs that I or anyone else has privacy, and I frankly do not care.

      And my name is Mike, Mike Partain to be exact, more commonly known as Spiked3 but i think that was unavailable on slashdot. So good accidental guess.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    12. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, look at all the AC posts. You guys are fricken cowards. Like posting anonymously is somehow going to prevent the government from knowing who you are.

      You slashnerds sure love to shit on AC, yet I don't see any real world ID on you.

      What's your real name?
      What's your real world address?
      What's your phone number?
      What's your email?
      What's your IP?

      Yeah.....that's what I thought. You can STFU now.

    13. Re:Reality check by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      If you want the NSA/FBI/CIA to stop spying on everyone, abolish them. Then enjoy your free country for about a year, because that is as long as it will last.

      Once upon a time I worked with a company whose competitors had an influence in SORM system (the Russian phone interception system for investigation). Of course, all our clients came to them. We became happy only after our boss began working from home and secretly rented a phone line from his neighbor.

      Now imagine how much YOUR economy loses due to leaks of your secret info to competitors via bribed agents of 3-letters. No wonder that your free country is no more free.

    14. Re:Reality check by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Haha, look at all the AC posts. You guys are fricken cowards

      Look at my user name. Now look at yours.

      I don't think you're in a position to criticize anyone about being a "coward".

  21. Year Zero by Moppusan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More and more the concept album "Year Zero" by Nine Inch Nails is becoming less "concept" and more "reality."

    --
    You can dance if you want to.
  22. don't be grandiose by rewindustry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    these people are not warriors - they are parasites, and should be treated as such.

    it's simply criminal, they should go to jail, like all the rest.

    1. Re:don't be grandiose by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't even touch the worst of it. There are now 50,000 compromised computer networks out there, there will be a mad rush by organised crime and various criminal organisation to find those, network time bombs and make use of them. Even fucking worse, these hacks on the odd occasion will have been planted on the networks of criminal organisations, so all they have to do is find them local, decode and then they will have the basis for the keys to 50,000 other networks. Those fucking morons have created a global network time bomb, just waiting to be hacked and now those fucking idiots can't do anything to clean it up without exposing themselves and the US government to criminal and civil prosecution. Basically it is now just a matter of time until they start going off all over the bloody place and governments all over the globe will be turning the criminal prosecutorial forces at the US governments, all of it's organisation and US corporations.

      It is now a matter of fact, that the US government at the behest of US corporations purposefully conspired to create global internet warfare to drive up computer security profits and likely ultimately to cripple to the internet and take it from the hands of the people and turn it over to total control by major corporations. The US government via the NSA basically declared war on the global internet and set about launching criminal attacks upon every other country upon the face of the globe as well as upon US citizens.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:don't be grandiose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your grasp of encryption, which they are no doubt using, is pretty poor if you think one gets any other. That you think "corporate America" somehow did this to increase computer security sales - which is paltry compared to the NSA budget is also amusing.

    3. Re: don't be grandiose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global computer security expenditure is impossible to get vaguely precise numbers for, but probably exceeds US$100 billion per year.

      NSA budget is also impossible to get precise (public) numbers for, but is probably only a fraction of this, eg US$10â"20 billion.

    4. Re: don't be grandiose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      p.s. apparently Slashdot doesn't support proper typesetting such as an en dash for a numeric range. Here it is with a hyphen instead:

      US$10-20 billion

    5. Re:don't be grandiose by countach · · Score: 1

      I don't know, those 50000 networks are probably no less secure than before. The NSA probably has an encrypted secure channel into them, which is no easier to hack than whatever exploit they originally used to get in. Who knows, they might have even closed the original exploit and made them more secure.

    6. Re:don't be grandiose by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It''s like you are blind and oblivious to stuxnet which has now spread far and wide beyond the original target. That the game the morons at NSA are playing, this is nothing to do with defence or security, this is stupidity at play and destined to break the internet if not stopped.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  23. the spooks are in everyone's wires by johnrpenner · · Score: 1
  24. Windows Update is the mechanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows Update is the main mechanism, not "malicious" software.

  25. Fix the damn holes: require free code & monito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of the lack of concern over security by everybody. People shouldn't say "the site requires active-x or the site requires flash or the site requires java" and accept that. Say NO and complain. It's ridicules that we should have to accept an active-x plug-in in order to find out if a default judgment has been levied against oneself for instance.

    If more people would stop following the non-free software model and switch to picking out the best distributors (ie not the ones which include everything under the kitchen sink to make it 'easier') we wouldn't have this problem.

    You don't even have to give up *everything*. Just pick some things. Stop using Microsoft Windows, stop using Microsoft Office, stop using Java/Flash/active-x, etc. Pick several and stick to it.

    I use Adobe Flash, but have moved off of Microsoft Windows/active-x/Java and refuse to use anything requiring digital restrictions (like Netflix, Hulu, etc). I stream content from sites that are not DRM'd and use torrents.

    I have one weakness. I do go to the movies so sadly the entertainment industry is getting paid still. However they aren't getting money from me in other ways either. Although mostly because I object to paying a cable company that advertises in the most unethical of manor and otherwise is horrible anyway. I don't accept that you can claim cable is 50x faster than DSL for instance. It's not. It's totally dependent on the speeds available in your area, the congestion of the cable system in your neighborhood, etc. Cable is always 'up to' whereas DSL is usually at the advertised speed short of line conditions or distance related issues. That's not the same thing as knowingly lying to customers about your capabilities (which are always limited) compared to the competition (which is only limited by, if,).
     

  26. Tell that to Gary McKinnon by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USA pursued Gary McKinnon for a decade for cracking some USA military and NASA computers, mainly those where incompetent sysadmins had not changed default passwords. What Gary McKinnon was wrong; but this is also wrong and worse by an order of magnitude.

    Do we assume that the USA gov't will hand over those responsible as it wanted the UK to hand over Gary McKinnon ? I would eat all of my hats if the USA gov't even talked about the possibility.

    1. Re:Tell that to Gary McKinnon by gweihir · · Score: 3, Informative

      His guilt depends. A few years back, a Swiss court decided with regard to somebody breaking into computers at the WEF, that a default password was equivalent to no password and a software secured by a default password was the same as unsecured software and hence no breaking in had happened, but rather access to a public resource. Accordingly, the person responsible walked. I find that quite a sensible verdict.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Tell that to Gary McKinnon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that quite a sensible verdict.

      Why am I not shocked?

    3. Re:Tell that to Gary McKinnon by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I suspect that Gary did a lot more than simple snooping. And if we found somebody had spied on UK, and done more than simple snooping, then yeah, we would likely turn them over.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Tell that to Gary McKinnon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 x 10 E 4 networks is four orders of magnitude worse than what McKinnon did. Just saying

    5. Re:Tell that to Gary McKinnon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You 'suspect' because you probably were still busy watching cartoons while your mom wiped your nose.

      I remember the things he said, and even without considering that it was pretty obvious(and somewhat unnerving) how grossly incompetent the US gov was when it came to all things 'computer' back then. He was not the only one snooping around either, he was just unlucky enough to be selected as the example.

      This was a time when most people were still running win95 and most people thought the 'internet' was magically contained on those CD's they got in the mail that said "AOL" on them.

  27. SELinux? by Dadoo · · Score: 0

    That malicious software wouldn't happen to be called SELinux, would it?

    --
    Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    1. Re:SELinux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      about 5 years ago, I was working on my PhD in computer security. We had a paper about some issues in SE Linux. We hadn't found any backdoors but there were a couple things that concerned us. It was accepted by a journal and then pulled at the last minute. No reason given but my advisor told us to drop it. "Bad career move" were the words he used.

    2. Re:SELinux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about 5 years ago, I was working on my PhD in computer security. We had a paper about some issues in SE Linux. We hadn't found any backdoors but there were a couple things that concerned us. It was accepted by a journal and then pulled at the last minute. No reason given but my advisor told us to drop it. "Bad career move" were the words he used.

      And you chose not to at least submit this to DEFCON exactly why?

      Seems like the ideal avenue for this exact kind of vetting. You would likely bolster your career and notoriety over findings of that nature, especially in that audience.

    3. Re:SELinux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then publish it now. Fuck journals, put it on the internet.
      If you know something concretely fishy about SE Linux and you're not telling anyone, you're doing us all a disservice.

    4. Re:SELinux? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet he still doesn't disclose what was weird or concerning to them even in an anonymous posting talking about finding something weird or concerning. It's like those whisper campaigns that don't really say anything bad but say something in a way that people interpret it badly then as momentum builds, things are simply added by people who think they heard more then what was said. Before you know it, an attorney general running for governor wants to take birth control away from women when the courts have said long ago that the state couldn't do that and nothing he done as the lead attorney for the state indicates that he ever wanted to do or try to do such things.

      I mean even if he was scared/worried that something could come back on him, all he would need to do is find someone who doesn't care like at a defcon and tell them where to look anonymously.

    5. Re:SELinux? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Please self publish, tell the world, smart people will look into your work and fix issues over time.
      Your work would also help people learning computer security.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:SELinux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exits.
      Having 'exits' where you can put your hooks into, and those exits are not locked down with adequate security, or more likely missing it altogether. So a non-privileged user can escalate, and say, the keyboard intercept is wide open AND it is convention not to clear the buffer. Another way may be an 'On Error' routine, which can privilege escalate. The context of the 'on error' means it can pass and audit, if combined with poor memory fencing.All security products are 'gettable' , as you are going to fold if you cant sell into the US market. Another possible beauty is direct DMA from video cards, many possibilities if undisclosed instruction sets are available.

      It is a matter of what is NOT in the code rather than whats in it. The linix 'immutable' setting have got to hurt.One concludes security experts and guru's are not. The downside? The4 most popular OS's (MS, Apple, Phones(all brands), *Nix may covered. BSD's are a lot harder. Once people start using not run-of-the-mill stuff, the game will be harder.

  28. The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt, and the response of U.S. citizens is to make foolish jokes.

    1. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt, and the response of U.S. citizens is to make foolish jokes.

      Well, the 2% who give a shit enough to crack jokes are cracking jokes, for they likely know it's far too late to do fuck-all about it.

      You're not hearing from the other 98% who don't give a shit, and helped create this mess, one obedient sheep at a time.

    2. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The response of SOME U.S. citizens is to make foolish jokes.
      --there, fixed for you
      Regrettably, I cannot fix your bigotry.

      A large percentage of U.S. citizens are glad that the Guardian published the information that Snowden took. While he broke the rules, the news media has a responsibility to publish these documents to highlight any improprieties and illegalities going on in the U.S. Federal Government. That's what the news media did with "Watergate" and the Ellsburg Paper. It resulted in the resignation of POTUS Richard M. Nixon. There is no reason for these documents to be withheld now. Regrettably, the U.S. news media did not take the lead in this particular story or other stories during the current regime.

    3. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by jjp9999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I enjoyed the response of Europeans a lot more when they learned their governments were doing the exact same thing. Americans care about this stuff. When people in other countries learn their governments do the exact same things, they try to excuse it then turn the conversation back to America.

    4. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's what the news media did with "Watergate" and the Ellsburg Paper. It resulted in the resignation of POTUS Richard M. Nixon.

      I've thought about that a lot lately. I remember how the country was at a standstill during that time. I wonder if Watergate would even merit being published currently, let alone force a resignation.

    5. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? "President" is too hard to spell, or what?

    6. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The response of SOME U.S. citizens is to make foolish jokes.
      --there, fixed for you
      Regrettably, I cannot fix your bigotry.

      A large percentage of U.S. citizens are glad that the Guardian published the information that Snowden took. While he broke the rules, the news media has a responsibility to publish these documents to highlight any improprieties and illegalities going on in the U.S. Federal Government. That's what the news media did with "Watergate" and the Ellsburg Paper. It resulted in the resignation of POTUS Richard M. Nixon.

      But nothing Nixon did would be illegal nowadays (probably excepting the sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks in order to gain election points, clear-cut treason), so the media has no business publishing the dirty underwear of the government. It has all been congress-approved.

      There is no reason for these documents to be withheld now.

      In the absence of an actual crime or misdemeanor (the actual crimes happened in congress before by passing generous waivers for all sorts of things previously considered crimes), the media can be expected to be loyal.

      Regrettably, the U.S. news media did not take the lead in this particular story or other stories during the current regime.

      Maybe they'll pick up a bit before the end of this Floodgate affair.

    7. Re: The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesnt look like americans care about it at all.

    8. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt, and the response of U.S. citizens is to make foolish jokes.

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    9. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not the "exact same thing" though, excluding the UK for a moment which is basically a US subsidiary when it comes to spying. Yeah, the French and the Germans and the Belgians all spy, but they don't routinely intercept all communications, hack into everyone's email accounts, subvert encryption standards and so on. Germany never hacked Obama's phone.

      I think most people accept that some spying is necessary, and that many European countries have also gone too far, but the US/UK are on a completely different level.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Angeret · · Score: 1

      I hope one is not being a tit by thinking I'm a Yank, hmm? I was talking about the hard-as-nails people of Finland.

    11. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by doctorfaustus · · Score: 2

      >>>> the media can be expected to be loyal.
       
      The patriotic bias is one of the most widespread, and unrecognized, journalistic slants. Frankly, as a stakeholder (voter) I'd rather the media just tell us the truth instead of what they think should be he truth. That way I can make reasonable decisions and use my power wisely

    12. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today? They'll just go "Everyone does that anyway, heck the Other Party did it too". "And now for your scheduled twerking..."

    13. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote to my MP; Did you write to your congressman/senator?

    14. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by stackOVFL · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did. And she told me that she didn't agree with my position on the matter. She offered that if I'd like to I could call one of her drones to debate the topic. I passed on that. And there folks it is: congressional reps really don't care what we think until it hits them in the purse or wallet. It not about doing the *right* thing it's about doing the profitable thing. Profit also includes trying to secure your position or power.

    15. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 2

      That's great that many US citiziens are glad. Meanwhile, Snowden himself can't travel because every country is scared shitless what your government will do to them if they protect the whistleblower from the corrupt government who wants to lock him up for good.

      You do live in a democracy right? That means YOU the American people are responsible for your government. Stop being pussies and blaming it on the other 99% of the population and do something about it please. Protest, riot, petition, whatever you need to do... the rest of the world is counting on you.

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

      Thank you for the excellent example.

    17. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by doccus · · Score: 1

      WTF? "President" is too hard to spell, or what?

      Hmmm Precedent...Procuittodent.. princident.. parsley. Yu.. seems so.. Gotta stop hanging around with that "common core" crowd...

    18. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      That is a disappointing argument...do you enjoy your food more when the other guy is hungry? Seriously...think about it...deflection and transference are unproductive in this context. This is not OK...at the very least it is seriously impolite. We, as Americans, have no control over (or culpability for) what other countries do. Further, I have seen nothing indicating this scale of intrusion occurring elsewhere...or the capability (budget) to match our effort...it doesn't matter who started it (think kindergarten). I have a hard time believing the depth and breadth of this is driven solely by defensive imperative...it feels overly intrusive...and smacks of improper economic incentive. The temptation to reap economic benefit (from stealing business secrets) is too great. We must establish either better boundaries or transparency...or we run the very real risk of becoming what we say we are fighting against. We are creating (or perpetuating) a world wide breakdown of trust and integrity. There has to be a better way...and I suspect it begins with respectful restraint.

    19. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      Yep, because we can't do much else. American citizens don't have that much of a say. Our elections are not quite rigged, but highly controlled by both political parties to be expensive and lopsided (voting districts are designed to be overwhelming of one political party). Our government's structure isn't designed well to handle collusion between all three branches of government. The only way to make an impact is to get a LOT of people together that are willing to spend a lot of money. That's enough to keep what you got, maybe small advances. AARP is the king of this, NRA and AFL–CIO are a much smaller examples. I wish the EFF was a bigger example.

      So, the only way things like this could be stopped is a civil war. Which you probably wouldn't want, as it'd have global repercussions. If the federal government won, imagine our current system only twenty times as bonkers. If the federal government lost, there is no guarantee the new government won't be twenty times as bonkers as the current government. The Hunger Games is an literary example of California beating DC, there's plenty of other fiction and nonfiction examples.

    20. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      That's cute. Look up "reapportioning" or "gerrymandering". That and the costs involved to win an election. Plus, all three branches collude to violate the US Constitution. So, no, we're not responsible for our government directly anymore. If we could be, that'd probably be made illegal as well. Protests will be cordoned off into "free speech zones", far from the folks they wish to protest. Riots will be put down by thousands of police officers. Petitions will be ignored. All of these have been done, and will continue to be done. And all safely ignored by those in power.

      Most folks just keep their head down, mind their business and pay their taxes. I'm one of those. Sure, I vote and give money to good causes, but that's a negligible impact.

    21. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      Wow, AmiMoJo so perfectly proved the point, you'd swear it was masterful trolling.

  29. Re:NSA means JEW by jodido · · Score: 2

    Which Jew? Maybe it's one of my cousins.

  30. this is nothing compare to Malaysia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you guys complaining about NSA monitoring you guys using illegal method. In Malaysia the gov cronnies own the isp here and they can monitor us 24/7 seeing what we type and so on unless we encrypt all our data. They can even see what I am typing now, best part of all we cant do anything while you guys can since it is illegal to sniff people privacy

    1. Re:this is nothing compare to Malaysia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for letting us know. Next time the Malaysian snooping comes up in the news, please submit it as a Slashdot article and we can talk about it further. That certainly sounds like a serious issue.

  31. Re:NSA means JEW by dale.furno · · Score: 1

    Wow, antisemitism in 2013.

    troll harder, AC.

  32. NOwden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a FUCKING LIE

  33. The internet by dohzer · · Score: 1

    So they infected the internet. That's one. What were the other 49,999?

  34. Re:Act of War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, The "Do as I say, not as I do" standard.

    "American Exceptionalism" in NewSpeak. Double-plus FTFY.

  35. piss off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow isn't that a bit low cause rumor has it NSA can't pee without being caught

  36. Looking Forward To Firing My Representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't appreciate it when someone who is supposed to be representing my interests just sits there and does nothing while Clapper and Alexander lie to their faces under direct questioning, and then continue to be allowed to violate not only my fourth amendment rights, but the fourth amendment rights of hundreds of millions of other americans. Where are the goddamned indictments, reps?

  37. In Soviet Russia, programs execute YOU! by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 2

    I believe that the only method to get rid of such threat is to make files executable by change of their attributes, not their extension. You understand what I mean ;-)

  38. Botched Redactions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Center top of the slide is a list of compromised regional networks identified by major cities. It is fascinating that half were redacted. There are apparently corresponding dots on the world map diagram that do not appear to be redacted. A quick count suggests that the number of redacted and unredacted cities is approximately the number of dots on the map. I propose that it should be possible to deduce what the redacted regional network cities are from the map.

    1. Re:Botched Redactions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely think there was an error in redacting this document in an attempt to protect national security. The missing cities are in China, the Middle East, and in Russia and other former Soviet territories. It is relatively simple to identify them from the map. I don't believe pointing this out is any more compromising because obvious dots on world map are frickin' obvious. FYI same AC here FWIW.

  39. Useless PR hack by gargleblast · · Score: 2
    From TFA:

    A government spokesperson states that any disclosure of classified material is harmful to our national security.

    What a useless PR hack. Two points:

    • A large amount of classified material is over-classified, not in the least bit harmful to national security, and mostly just embarrassing to the government.
    • In circumstances such as this, it is actually government activity is that harmful to national security.
    1. Re:Useless PR hack by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 2

      A government spokesperson states that any disclosure of classified material is harmful to our national security.

      JFYI: Long time ago I worked with (then) top secret information in some Soviet scientific institution (Disclaimer: This info is a GPS coordinates and is not secret anymore). I have found that a fraudster pseudo-scientist successfully used the top secret status to cover his activity from scientific community and to milk the Russian military-industrial complex with his pseudoscientific activities.

      I cannot believe that similar over-secrecy with similar results cannot happen everywhere, including US.

  40. national security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, any disclosure of any classified information whatsoever could cause the end of the world....Just how much classified material is there these days? At least exascale data centers in the USA, taking up over 400 square miles of petabyte drives and massive supercomputers...

  41. your own country treat it as act of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How often in the last month did we hear of you guys saying "china is cybar attacking us !", "cyber war ! eleventy !". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  42. What Os? by mrmangosir559 · · Score: 1

    So what OS did they infect?

    1. Re:What Os? by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, it is not named OS. We name it "a graphically decorated cheap shell (or bootloader) with a strong smell of mice". You understand.

  43. Re:NSA means JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Sounds great, but why didn't our rabbi tell us anything about this?

  44. In Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In America Governments infects you!

  45. Here's what I suspect by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I suspect an upwardly mobile legal type wanted a big trophy to put in his wall so hyped this UFO nut that was trespassing on poorly secured sites as some sort of international master criminal. It sounds better on the CV than hassling a guy with a history of mental illness for looking around bits of the net where there is supposed to be better security than there is.
    All we've seen is a lot of opinions and hearsay but that's as good a grasp as I can get on it. You would think that "more then simple snooping" would have resulted in some solid evidence. There's nothing in his background that indicates he'd be capable of more than that.

  46. Rogue State by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 2

    The USA is a rogue state. I have no desire to visit there and wish to limit its influence on my life to a minimum.

    My commiserations to the citizens of the USA who have to endure its Orwellian regime and unfair, capitalist system.

  47. that assumes by rewindustry · · Score: 1

    they used the exploit at all - i gather the majority of these incursions are left hanging because the NutSoupAhats are smart enough to not want to get caught with their fingers in anyone savvy enough to bite.

  48. More terrorists. by Krohon · · Score: 1

    Lets redefine the word "terrorist" by expanding it's meaning to, not just "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism." but to include the ones that are inducing fear to get bigger salaries and shiny supercomputers. By promoting fear without a real threat, NSA and friends are contributing to global terror.

  49. I think by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Post 911 every human is a 'potential' terrorist for US regime