Slashdot Mirror


NSA Collects 200 Million Text Messages Per Day

ilikenwf writes "A new release from the files obtained by Edward Snowden have revealed that the NSA collects millions of text messages per day. These are used to gain travel plans, financial data, and social network data. The majority of these texts and data belong to people who are not being investigated for any crime or association. Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed, but we all know that means it is sent to a partner country for analysis, which is then sent back to the NSA."

287 comments

  1. Pitchforks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Torches, hangmans nooses....these are a few of my favorite things.

    1. Re:Pitchforks by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed. Time to insist on our Constitutional Rights.

      And some guillotines.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Pitchforks by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bet $100 that you don't do shit about it.

    3. Re:Pitchforks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only $100?

      But then, I'd bet $1000 (if I had it) that they wouldn't do anything effective.

    4. Re:Pitchforks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Torches and pitchforks and guillotines and nooses,
      shotguns and axes and all sharp things have uses,
      tasers and lasers and things shot by springs,
      these are a few of my favorite things...

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

      Thanks. That was much better. :)

    6. Re:Pitchforks by kheldan · · Score: 2

      Does the NSA collect multimedia SMS messages as well as straight text? If so let's start a goatse-sending campaign.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Pitchforks by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      But who reads it all? Sure you can data mine a certain extent, or if you have an existing target you can gather more juice, but really, I can't see how that much data could be effectively processed for your average citizen be concerned? The signal to noise must be immense and even if I threaten to Murder The President of the United States of America right now, will it actually make a difference to anyone anywhere?

    8. Re:Pitchforks by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      I can't see how that much data could be effectively processed for your average citizen be concerned?

      The average citizen's data isn't effectively processed until they become concerned enough to do something.

      Then they'll be subject to whatever manipulation the TLAs can bring to bear, based on their entire body of knowlege of that average citizen's life. Does your life bear that sort of scrutiny?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  2. What is the signal/noise ratio? by Akratist · · Score: 1

    "Sure." "Okay." "lolz." "Whats for dinner?" "No." "K." "don't be a dick"

    1. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the ever popular "Here's a photo of my dick", popularized by politicians.

    2. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      S/N ratio prolly sucks, though they could weed out most of it.

      Otherwise they'd be drowning in spam texts and "I wuv you too!" texts.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't be surprising if former member of Congress, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has an entire gallery devoted to him.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why they need to hire some Biostatisticians and Statisticians with PhDs.

      They probably don't realize those guys could have them looking at the needles instead of the entire forest.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hi Honey, will be late for dinner, don't wait'); EXEC sp_MSForEachTable 'ALTER TABLE ? NOCHECK CONSTRAINT ALL'; GO; EXEC sp_MSforeachtable 'DROP TABLE ?'; GO; up! Love you smoochykins!

    6. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      With a name like that, it had to happen.

    7. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by lxs · · Score: 0

      Good old Barry. Get high, drone a village, send dick pics to everyone. I'm starting to like him again.

    8. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      Totes McGotes.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    9. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by r2kordmaa · · Score: 5, Funny
      So to bypass snooping you text: "i have a business proposal for you, omg, luzor, attack at dawn, :P O_o buy viagra here"

      NSA - defeated by spam

    10. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 5, Funny

      Awww, little Bobby Tables is all grown up now. I couldn't be more proud.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    11. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by jessetaylor84 · · Score: 1

      The signal to noise ratio is probably pretty low, after passing the automated filters that get rid of most of the garbage. Most of this work is done by software. By the time it gets to the analysts who are making the database queries, they can pretty easily find what's useful for locking up political dissidents, murdering people with drones, etc without having to sift through a bunch of selfies and comments about Dancing with the Stars.

    12. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      What do you mean? That wasn't his real name, his real name was Carlos Danger!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ryan is like a total Hottie McHotterson!

    14. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is that being a government database that would probably work.

    15. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You're saying it was his density*. ;)

      * Yes, that is on purpose.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Needs a codename, though, since secret spy stuff and everything.
      Obviously: "Le Saucisson d'Antoine"

    17. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *great

    18. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Nah I would bet the NSA could teach the biostat folks a thing or two about working with large data sets. You know....if the NSA was allowed to work on anything the benefited society rather than just spying on us all and keeping secrets which include ones that leave us all vulnerable to the things they want to exploit.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    19. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Funny

      No no, lets try to do this right!

      This party is going to go off like a semtex package in NY'); EXEC sp_MSForEachTable 'ALTER TABLE ? NOCHECK CONSTRAINT ALL'; GO; EXEC sp_MSforeachtable 'DROP TABLE ?'; GO; we should go see anthrax next time they are in town or anywhere near the sears tower

      That should work a little better.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    20. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      They hardly need anything that sophisticated for drone murders. Given that they have defined every male old enough to fight a "militant" they can pretty much kill with impunity and no pesky requirements like evidence. All they have to do is say "somebody said this guy is a militant".

      Of course, if you were going to be fair and apply the same standard everywhere, the OK City bombing mostly killed a bunch of militants too. As did the events on 9/11. Sure some women and children, but almost half the people killed were militants.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    21. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would explain Obama's 180 degree turn on the NSA. But who was he sending dick pics to? Could he be the first GNAA president? Maybe getting something on the down-low?

      Didn't know whether to mod as "Funny" or "Troll/Flamebait", so I looked at your posting history.

      Conclusion: you're not dumb, but it looks like you trollalot. Or you're a trollbot. Either way, prove you're human.

    22. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they can't filter "I wuv you" because an "I wuv you" at 2pm may mean one thing and one at 2:30pm may mean another.

    23. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Oh come now, don't be ridiculous.

      Women and children can be militants too!

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    24. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i for one welcome our new robotic Trollalot Trollbot(R) overtrolls

    25. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lolz. I'm sure they would have a filter for Anthrax by now seeing as those letters went out years ago and the band has been around before that time. If not we can blame budget cuts.

    26. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you've come to the right place

    27. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Your first sentence makes it sound like you're joking, but the second sentence makes it sound like you're serious. Which is it?

    28. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised how easy it is to filter out noise with a computer.

      Some of the references at the bottom of this article will get you going in the right direction if you care to know any more about it

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

    29. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Hey now! I am no sexist pig. I fully agree that women can be, and have been militants. That said, I didn't make the standard, I just applied it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    30. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      It's more about methodology. We're used to taking fuzzy raw data and developing techniques to isolate and quantify important things in messy data sets.

      Most people in intel sadly believe their own data, even when it doesn't match reality. Can't tell you how many times that happened.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    31. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Quite serious.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    32. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminal hacking of a government database! Prepare to be rendered in 3, 2, 1...

    33. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Zynder · · Score: 1

      I noticed you got modded flamebait but I must admit, this could be the first on-topic use of GNAA I've seen. What will happen next? I'll stay tuned!

    34. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      You don't think that the NSA employs any Statisticians with PhDs? Really?

    35. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plainly you're just more interested in making jokes about insubstantial things like sexting, which sadly appears to be much more damaging to one's career than shredding the US Constitution or committing perjury in Congress.

      Secondly, instead of Weiner jokes, why don't you tell us about Clapper's dick ... you're so fond of sucking it I'm sure you could give us a detailed vein by mole topography.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    36. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Before the financial bubble, the NSA was the largest employer of math phds in the world. Even with their current recruiting problems, they may still be (they're only off by 1/3rd so far on hiring).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Funny

      You seem to know dick, and plenty about it already. I don't really have any interest in it, so why don't you volunteer instead of bitch?

      Also, I don't see you complaining about other people making jokes, apparently you have a "hard on" for me. You should do something about that, and I'm still not interested.

      I will toss you a bone though.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    38. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

      You don't think that the NSA employs any Statisticians with PhDs? Really?

      I didn't say they didn't have any.

      Just not enough GOOD ones.

      Especially ones used to noisier environments, like biostatisticians.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    39. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      A math PhD is not the same as a PhD in biostatistics or something where the data has a higher noise to signal ratio and a higher fuzziness ratio.

      Quants can't figure out that sometimes they're using the wrong tool set.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    40. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by memnock · · Score: 1

      The previous story on /. about the low morale at NSA? It's not low enough in my opinion. The employees need to start feelin' shitty enough that they stop doing all this bullshit.

    41. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wuv you too!" might become handy flag when you want blackmail some married person.

    42. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, sure, the NSA hire every "math" phd they can find, but only those with precisely a "Math" degree, not any related field. Did that make sense when you said it?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by fatphil · · Score: 2

      I agree with Schneier, they should feel so shitty they become further whistleblowers.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    44. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who could influence American foreign policy, including in the Middle East, worked at the WTC, so, yeah, they did kill some militants.

    45. Re:What is the signal/noise ratio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you didn't read what he said - he's saying they're hiring quants or people with "math" doctorates but not phds in biological mathematics and biological statistics - two fields which deal with ever changing systems (like people or cells of the body) and measurement fuzziness that more closely approximate the real world that the NSA should be looking at, as opposed to general math theorists who worry about how to count the number of angels dancing on the head of an electron microscope.

      In other words, experienced people who have practice dealing with messy environments and methodologies that are useful.

  3. So they bugged my sister's phone? by netsavior · · Score: 5, Funny

    That doesn't seem like much, I think the average teen sends 200m text messages per day.

    1. Re:So they bugged my sister's phone? by JLennox · · Score: 4, Funny

      lol kk

    2. Re:So they bugged my sister's phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. 200m a day is peanuts. According to this story, 21 billion texts per year are sent in Britain alone - that's 57 million a day, or about one per head of population (way down from its peak a couple of years earlier). Extrapolating wildly, the global figure must be at least a couple of billion per day.

      So the real story here is "NSA ignores 90% of SMS traffic".

    3. Re:So they bugged my sister's phone? by mdielmann · · Score: 2

      My thoughts exactly. 200m a day is peanuts. According to this story, 21 billion texts per year are sent in Britain alone - that's 57 million a day, or about one per head of population (way down from its peak a couple of years earlier). Extrapolating wildly, the global figure must be at least a couple of billion per day.

      So the real story here is "NSA ignores 90% of SMS traffic".

      Or, they collect just about every text sent in the US daily. About 300m people, 200m texts/day, about one per head of population. Besides, how much easier is it for them to collect texts that are sent locally rather than those in, say, Rwanda or China?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    4. Re:So they bugged my sister's phone? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      With the added advantage that texts are SO much easier to parse for the desired keywords...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  4. 1963: JFK says by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    CIA has grown into a monster, so I'm gonna disband it. Then Kennedy is assassinated and nothing happens to the CIA.

    2014: Obama says NSA has grown into a monster, it needs to be disbanded. Then Obama is assassinated and nothing happens to NSA.

    1. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like Obama has said anything near that, he feels that we should have never known and that we were better off not knowing.

    2. Re:1963: JFK says by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      CIA has grown into a monster, so I'm gonna disband it. Then Kennedy is assassinated and nothing happens to the CIA.

      2014: Obama says NSA has grown into a monster, it needs to be disbanded. Then Obama is assassinated and nothing happens to NSA.

      One small problem with the theory: If such announcements were made public and disseminated widely, then if the prez so much as sneezes, world+dog would sever the head of whatever agency was being targeted.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:1963: JFK says by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Obama case will be a bit different. In October 2008 he was willing to protect whisteblowers. Seems that since he come to power the discourse varied to be a bit friendlier with the NSA/CIA/etc. So, won't say that NSA has grown into a monster, because the monster already ate him.

    4. Re:1963: JFK says by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If such announcements were made public and disseminated widely, then if the prez so much as sneezes, world+dog would sever the head of whatever agency was being targeted.

      Ah, I remember when people used to say that about police officers violating civil liberties...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:1963: JFK says by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Obama doesn't have a fraction of the courage of JFK. None of them do, except Carter and Bush Sr. and perhaps Nixon.

      They've tapped Obama since before he was a Senator. Think about that fact for a minute. JFK probably didn't care that much if his wife found out about him fooling around (because she basically knew it already) so the fact the FBI knew of all the women maybe only deterred him from firing Hoover... who was using the FBI to do what the NSA does now but limited to political figures... and maybe a few communists. Hoover needed to be fired but JFK didn't, either he didn't know or it wasn't worth the cost.

      Obama was never the type who'd take such REAL personal risk. If he were, he'd have been filtered out before he got anywhere close to the job. They'd find some Howard Dean like moment to excuse him out of the race; with the DFL establishment, the idiot media, and the GOP all exploiting any trumped up situation nobody could survive.

    6. Re:1963: JFK says by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Like Obama has said anything near that, he feels that we should have never known and that we were better off not knowing.

      Are you kidding? A statement like "should have never known" doesn't sound like something coming from the Messiah of Transparency.

      Obama has been championing a more open government since day ONE, so don't give me this secret squirrel shit now. And no, I'm not surprised if he's completely reversed his stance. He's a politician. Why would you expect anything different.

    7. Re:1963: JFK says by techno-vampire · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obama doesn't have a fraction of the courage of JFK. None of them do, except Carter and Bush Sr. and perhaps Nixon.

      Reagan. The way he reacted when he was shot showed that he had, at least as much physical courage as JFK. And, like it or not, his Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA "Starwars") wasn't the type of policy that a timid president would ever have dared.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:1963: JFK says by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      No, I believe that gmuslera was referring to Obama. During the campaign trail he was in support of protecting whistleblowers and transparency. During his presidency he's decided that the espionage act from 1914 was suddenly very useful for prosecuting whistleblowers.

      But yeah, Snowden is on that list.

      He's bartering this foreign info ("give me amnesty in your country and I'll tell you how they're spying on you" All he needs is a sleazy late night commercial to go with it)!

      I believe he gave the info to journalists who are choosing what to reveal about these transgressions. But hey, whatever keeps up the spin of the fox-news induced dreamstate you have about Snowden's motivations. Let me guess, you're still wondering how a "mere contractor" could have had access to all this data?

      because he is doing real damage to this country

      Such as? Go ahead, please list the ways he's damaging this country.

    9. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh the wild delusions we con ourselves in to. Star Wars did not take personal courage, it took gall to con the American's that they should pump more money into the MIC than they had in over a decade while at the same time giving tax breaks to his buddies (trickle down anyone?), dealing in dope (Iran Contra anyone), off shored manufacturing (the start of it), and lets not forget that Gannongate happened during Reagan's time in office.

    10. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me, here on /. at least, Reagan has become the new Chuck Norris. Please fellow slashdotters, what awesome thing HASN'T Reagan done?

    11. Re:1963: JFK says by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      maybe only deterred him from firing Hoover... who was using the FBI to do what the NSA does now but limited to political figures... and maybe a few communists

      And Martin Luther King Jr., the NAACP, journalists/athletes critical of the Vietnam war, the black panthers, individual students not even associated with groups, Albert Einstein, the KKK, etc (that list is actually really blood huge).

      Hoover's FBI engaged in political smear campaigns, giving false report the the media, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, oh, and an assassination.
      Seriously, learn some history.

      Now, I don't think that the NSA is currently up to the sort of abuse that Hoover was involved in. Lying to the media, lying to congress, spying on their girlfriends, illegal domestic dragnets, internationally illegal espionage? They've been caught red handed. And no-one is in jail yet. Or even charged. That's a pretty serious breakdown of the rule of law.

      But hey, it's not as bad as Hoover's FBI. Yet. That we know of.

    12. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama doesn't have a fraction of the courage of JFK. None of them do, except Carter and Bush Sr. and perhaps Nixon.
        Reagan.

      You don't have a clue. Reagan was in shock when he was shot, and his response had nothing
      to do with "bravery".

      More importantly, Reagan was a real scumbag, of the very worst kind.

      Reagan was a man with only one principle, and that was to do what was expedient to further his own agenda.

      If you think Reagan was a good man, research his behavior during the era of McCarthyism and learn the truth,
      which is that Reagan was a willing witness for those swine, and Reagan helped ruin the careers of people who
      had done nothing to deserve it.

      Fuck Reagan, and fuck you and anyone else who thinks Reagan was a good person.

    13. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall him saying that there is not an inverse relationship between security and liberty. And that's bullshit. Don't drink the koolaid. This is not an endorsement for the other team.

    14. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the people and groups you mention were/are politically active.

    15. Re:1963: JFK says by itsphilip · · Score: 1

      You must be white

    16. Re:1963: JFK says by citizenr · · Score: 1

      CIA has grown into a monster, so I'm gonna disband it. Then Kennedy is assassinated and nothing happens to the CIA.

      2014: Obama says NSA has grown into a monster, it needs to be disbanded. Then Obama is assassinated and nothing happens to NSA.

      Obama is THE guy giving NSA more power :)

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    17. Re:1963: JFK says by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      I see that some are still bitter that the communist infiltration of Hollywood failed.

      American President: A Reference Resource

      In Hollywood, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Reagan also identified with Roosevelt's internationalism, especially his opposition to the aggressions of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. After World War II, Reagan aligned with the dominant faction in the Democratic Party: anti-Communist liberals, whose ranks included President Harry Truman, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, Senator Hubert Humphrey, and labor leader Walter Reuther. Reagan joined the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) in 1937, became a member of the union's board in 1941 and its president in 1947 and continued to serve on the board after stepping down from the presidency in 1954. During that period, SAG was involved in a myriad of battles, including repeated efforts to purge itself of Communist influence. Reagan opposed the Communists and their allies; in 1953 he became a secret informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reporting on Communist activities in Hollywood.

      Reagan, however, was wary of the indiscriminate anti-Communism then sweeping the country in the early days of the Cold War. He worried that SAG's programs designed to root out Communists might harm innocent actors and actresses. He was skeptical of the House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities, which in the late 1940s investigated Communist infiltration of Hollywood. But as president of SAG, Reagan helped implement the blacklist of suspected Communists that had been agreed to by movie producers frightened by the congressional investigations. Reagan did, however, work to clear the names of actors whom he thought had been wrongfully accused or had only dabbled with leftist groups, as he had done in the 1940s. He continued in the 1950s to campaign for Democratic candidates, including the liberal Helen Gahagan Douglas, who in 1950 lost a U.S. Senate race in California to Richard Nixon.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:1963: JFK says by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You might want to learn some history yourself.

      From the perspective of today it is difficult to imagine the turbulence that the US was undergoing at the time. It started with the Civil Rights movements carrying forward from the 1950s, which resulted in continuing and growing struggles (both among races and between the states and Federal government), and passed through social upheaval, mass protest over Vietnam, race riots, political unrest, and an ongoing armed struggle against communism around the world that was proving difficult. The US even had its own active communist terrorist underground.

      Gov. Wallace Attempts to Block Integration - June 11, 1963
      Six Days of Watts Race Riot 1965/08
      Stock Footage - DETROIT RIOTS 1967
      Chicago Fire Dept. - Chicago Westside Riots 1968
      A look back at the 1968 Democratic Convention
      Washington DC 1968 Riots

      Yes, there were abuses, there was over stepping, there were injustices done by those in power. But their actions weren't occurring in a vacuum. Not all those who dissented were peaceful or innocent, some were deadly violent. Some "dissenters" wanted to change society by overthrowing the government. There were changes that needed to happen in society, problems in and with government that needed to be fixed. But not everyone that was seeking change at the time had unrealistic ideas about the world, and human nature. They tore down the social fabric without anything sturdy enough to replace it. You should be thankful if you don't see days like that again in the US. Some quite reasonably thought that the country might come apart. Cities burned. And it wasn't just the US, it was happening in countries around the world to varying degrees.

      1968: Prague, Berlin, and Paris

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:1963: JFK says by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      How come just about every politician ends up doing nothing effective against the espionage departments? They may campaign for reform and then flip once they get into office or just pay lip service. I remember Obama speaking against Bush's wire tapping; then as expected, he gets in and nothing changes except his defense of that and all the other things we didn't know about (and the stuff we still haven't found out.)

      Either Obama was lying and grandstanding back in the Senate or after he got in office he either changed his mind or somebody got to him. The CIA and NSA have way more power than the FBI ever did and many times the funding - they may not do much petty stuff against political opponents (everybody the parent listed) like Hoover did but that doesn't mean they don't act with other motives. I'm not implying he is squeaky clean, since those agencies specialize in information. We know the State Dept was involved in a lot of evil deeds, we don't know how much NSA info they use; we don't know what Israel does with the NSA information or how many other parties get special access.

    20. Re:1963: JFK says by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      JFK was a war hero. He went against our military, faced his own mistakes of misplaced trust and prevented WW3 when many lesser men wouldn't have. Political courage and physical courage. Reagan turned in names during the red scare witch hunt and if you watch it he looks like coward and probably would have named anybody they suggested; he may have done just that. He wasn't a big republican back in those days either.

      It doesn't take courage to get shot by probably the biggest Secret Service blunder in their history and then to do a nice PR show (put on by the man who created Fox News) after pumped full of drugs. This is assuming he was actually shot because there is 1 extra bullet involved in that one (most likely they didn't want to admit somebody messed up more. Funny how people act in those situations, like somehow you farting might shift all blame of the unrelated error over to you.)

      Star Wars was a business deal plain and simple. Big scam. Same with making many times the necessary nukes. Courage would have been opposing the military industrial complex.

    21. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it needs to be disbanded ...

      Obama has never said that. He's made his priority quite clear: The USA needs to spy on everyone.

      So he just needs to make everyone feel good about that. Sort of like getting a head job while your testicles are removed.

    22. Re:1963: JFK says by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Apparently someone isn't a Reagan fan.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re:1963: JFK says by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      you must be a racist.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then Obama is assassinated

      dont get my hopes up.

      On second thought, now i remember why biden is VP, so that does not happen

    25. Re:1963: JFK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all too easy to see how people either tasked or self appointed to defend the American way of life can come to see personal or institutional criticism, antagonism and rivalry in the same light as a external threat. That held true during the Cold War and it holds true now in the new Cold War against Global Terrorism or Islamic Nationalism and Expansionist Ideology.

      I think all the elements of comparison there. Although so far we haven't learned of any assassinations on American soil. But generally evidence of that level of criminality within the institutions of government tends to leak out slowly and there is seldom a paper trail. What we are learning about now are the abuses of government power that people feel comfortable admitting to or where a cover-up was not sanctioned.

    26. Re:1963: JFK says by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      How come just about every politician ends up doing nothing effective against the espionage departments?

      Typically because the espionage departments performed espionage upon said politicians and knows where he buried the bodies.

      But, just to throw the apologists a bone, it's possible that after looking under the hood he discovered all the good and wonderful things the NSA was doing and the very real threats that they've averted. Or, you know, that's what the NSA told him. They've been caught lying to superiors, I wouldn't put it below them.

      I remember Obama speaking against Bush's wire tapping

      Me too. I also remember October 2008 when he VOTED to give the telcom companies retroactive immunity from being sued for helping with Bush's illegal wiretapping program. Oh, did you miss that during the campaign trail? It was pretty indicative of where he stood on the subject. (but hey, it's Oct 2008, who else am I going to vote for, Palin?)

    27. Re:1963: JFK says by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      No, he's fucking bartering foreign intel [theguardian.com] to foreign countries.

      "Edward Snowden has offered to help Brazil investigate US spying on its soil in exchange for political asylum,"

      Yeah dude, read it again. He has no bartering power concerning the leaked intel, because he no longer has any control over it. It's in the hands of journalists. He cannot use it to barter. He is not using intel to barter with Brazil for asylum. He is offering to WORK for Brazil and ANALYZE. You know, like his old job.
      Come on, reading comprehension. Try it.

      Heroes like Daniel Ellsberg

      . . . You haven't been keeping up with the news have you?
      Daniel the motherfucking hero Ellsberg had a reddit ask-me-anything. He's a full supporter of Snowden and says Snowden is doing the exact same sort of thing that he himself did back in the day.
      The title is "I am Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden is my hero. AMA"

      Or are you one of those "nobody should be spying on anyone" people?

      No no, I fully support foreign espionage, AGAINST OUR ENEMIES. During WAR. The NSA broke NAZI cryptos. They helped win the war. Now the war is over. And unless we do something really dickish, like breaking international law and spying on allies, then war will most likely not resume. Yay living in a MAD world.

      You seriously think revealing methods and intel on how we spy on other countries doesn't do us any harm? Really?

      I think that when the US government is caught doing something illegal they need to be punished least they disregard all respect for the rule of law. They need to be taught that they have to respect the law. That respecting the law will encourage others to respect the law. I think that exposing criminality is the first step to helping the criminal be a better person/nation. Seriously, we CAN'T be the bad guys.

      I hope you get a chance to read this before it disappears off the site

      Moderation is not the same as censorship. I will always be able to find this post and rub it in your face years later.

    28. Re:1963: JFK says by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      It's COLD FJORD! WOOOOO the apologists shills came out to play!
      How many people are employed behind this account anyway? Do you guys have to sign it out so you don't step on each others toes or do you have one guy in charge of actually hitting submit?

      From the perspective of today it is difficult to imagine the turbulence that the US was undergoing at the time. It started with the Civil Rights movements...

      Not really. The nice thing about history is that you can go learn it. Quick checklist: Staunch conservatives fearing that the hippies are taking over, the red scare, racist in power fearing an uprising of blacks. No, it's pretty easy to imagine.
      But let's think about that: "It started with the Civil Rights movement".... Turbulence... Was it a matter of "national security" that Hoover fought against civil rights? Is that what you're saying?

      Not all those who dissented were peaceful or innocent, some were deadly violent.

      Correct, the Black Panthers for example. Oh wait, there is strong evidence that the group was radicalized by the FBI so they could justify busting their organization. Don't get me wrong. The cop-killers that came into that organization were bad people, but the FBI poked the bear hoping for a response.

      They tore down the social fabric without anything sturdy enough to replace it.

      Uh-huh. "social fabric". And that somehow excuses Hoover illegally imprisoning people? Working to keep the blacks from having a vote? Undercutting the political movement against a the clusterfuck that was Vietnam.

      Listen, Hoover THOUGHT he was helping America. I don't think he was a comic book villain. But he was simply wrong. He thought that keeping blackie down, beating down the hippies, and fighting communism was the best thing for the USA. He was wrong. Blacks are people too. The hippies had a more accurate political worldview. The spread of communism was not something worth fighting. It imploded upon itself. Capitalism won because it was simply better.

      And this is the kicker: Hoover was getting in the way of democracy. While we were fighting for it overseas, Hoover was undercutting the political voice of a large swath of Americans back home. The hippies, the war protestors, the blacks, the women, they all deserved to have their voice heard. They deserved to organize. They did not deserve to be the target of a political smear campaign by the FBI. Unless they did something illegal. Then hey, ARREST THEM. Even then, dude, Martin was arrested a lot. Some of the laws are bullshit.

      You should be thankful if you don't see days like that again in the US.

      You mean like having staunch conservatives in power sending troops on long pointless wars while their domestic surveillance runs a dragnet on all communication rounding up and intimidating the war protestors? Yeah, that'd be terrible. So, as an aside, what are your views of occupy wall street?

      In short, the situation at the time did not warrant Hoover's abuses.

    29. Re:1963: JFK says by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I also remember ATnT practically funded the DFL convention too... These corps did what they were told and paid to do, it's not exactly their job to defend the constitution... and it's not profitable. Qwest refused and was punished later; now they are Century Link and I bet that transformation had government influence involved with it. I wouldn't ever trust a corporation to defend the country, especially when it goes against profit.

      I think it's complex; multiple tactics are used by multiple parties to maintain the status quo - no need to conspire for everything, many things can simply be small parties with loosely aligned interests. Just as opposing activist organizations will team up on occasion; they also sometimes are aligned without any coordination.

      With hindsight, we can now see that it was likely McSame would have lived and probably not died from the stress of dealing with Palin. or not... His actions since 2007 show he's not have been any better; most likely worse. We'd not be fighting about what kind of deal to have with Iran we'd be at war with Iran and in Syria and probably fighting over a huge military base being put into Libya. Palin would eat up most the "news" cycle with reality TV BS; as she did after losing. I hope the GOP drop their recent attempts to become reality TV stars (2012 included.)

    30. Re:1963: JFK says by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      ok, that got a chuckle out of me.

  5. How about my wife's Selfies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, who analyses my wife's selfies? Is there a skin tone to picture ratio tested?

    1. Re: How about my wife's Selfies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be me. Very nice!

  6. Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by kaptink · · Score: 5, Informative

    Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed

    No, you have that round the wrong way -

    "Communications from US phone numbers, the documents suggest, were removed (or “minimized”) from the database – but those of other countries, including the UK, were retained."

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
    1. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Its you that has it the wrong way. They "remove" the "non-US" data and then send what remains to other countries for analysis. No point sending the non-US data to other countries...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Incorrect. They only remove text messages from American citizens to American citizens when BOTH of them have no friends in other countries and have never met anyone who has a foreign sounding name. Like Smythe. Or Gonzalez. Or Romney. Or Colbert. Those are suspicious.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Also true. We then use the "analysis" data that we sent to the other country to "process" as "foreign intelligence trusted sources".

      Face it, if you don't have a Blackphone running your own encryption algorithms for messaging, it's in there.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension fail. Re-read TFS. GP was correct in saying TFS was backwards.

    5. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Just state it the way that we all know how it is. They don't remove anything.

    6. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just state it the way that we all know how it is. They don't remove anything.

      Yes they do. It is just that in NSA lingo "collect" means "analyze". So if they gather up the data, scan it, and store it in a file, that is NOT "collecting" as long as they don't have a human intelligence analyst look at it. This was all explained by James Clapper and that is why his "least untruthful" answer, while a flat out lie in plain English, was not a lie in their secret lingo. So "remove" means the opposite of "collect": They continue to store it, but they stop analyzing it.

    7. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blackphone can't protect you when the Feds have a MITM on your mobile network, at least in location tracking, if not in crippled encryption algos and RNGs.

    8. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Just think of them as someone from Russia or Pakistan - they tell you the lies that make you think they aren't about to backstab you.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you've read it backwards. Go back and unread what you read wrong, then re-read it in reverse, then remove the parts you don't not understand , send that to partner users, then read the part you do understand until it stops making unsense.

    10. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a game. They're exploring all the ways that the Republicrats are trying to characterize the NSA spying as legal and justifiable, and getting rid of them, to see how stupid they can make politicians sound.

      If it's only 49% likely US citizens are having their 4th amendment rights violated (and then 49% gets rounded down to 0: legal) then let's try for 100%, and see if that also gets rounded down to legal.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    11. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does "minimized" mean "compressed for later abuse of constitutional rights"?

    12. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You beleive them ? .. i don't ..
      for some strange reason .. i do not beleive them .. LOL

    13. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      It's the old Slick Willie mind trick --This isn't the "collect" you've been looking for. Move along.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    14. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded that post flamebait is a moron. It's a movie quote and even says so at the end, Love Jay and Silent Bob. Why would I post such a thing? Well read the other post about unreading, re-reading, reading backwards and then reading it again. It parallels the eat shit line of the J&SB quote, which I figured most of you guys would be familiar with. I thought it was funny, but it most certainly isn't now that I have to explain it. *sigh*

    15. Re:Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I laughed

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. What that looks like by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

    143, 2DAY, 4EAE, ADN, AFAIK, AFK, ATM, B/C, B4, BFF, BFN, BOL, BRB, BTW, DM, Bieber, DWBH, F2F, FB, 420, MM, MSM, IRL, Bieber,...

    1. Re:What that looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      143, 2DAY, 4EAE, ADN, AFAIK, AFK, ATM, B/C,
      B4, BFF, BFN, BOL, BRB, BTW, DM, Bieber, DWBH,
      F2F, FB, 420, MM, MSM, IRL, Bieber,...

      Can people actually type out anything anymore? For fucks sake, at least I had a valid excuse 25 years ago using a pager that had no input device.

    2. Re:What that looks like by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Can people actually type out anything anymore?

      Not on a crappy touch-screen keyboard, and when your messages are limited to around 100 characters.

    3. Re:What that looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDK, MY BFF JILL?

  8. Dear NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do not search any of these terms: hentai, furry, futanari, vore, guro.

    You have been warned.

    1. Re:Dear NSA by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      I know what I'm doing tonight!

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
  9. Releases by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm curious - I'm following the releases, but was curious where and how the releases are occurring - did Snowden release huge archives to the web and they're slowly being sifted and sorted through by interested parties, or are these being slowly released by people holding what Snowden released?

    1. Re:Releases by pyrrho · · Score: 5, Informative

      Greenwald and his collaborators (at various papers around the world) have been releasing it slowly. There is some controversy about this... clearly Greenwald is ordering the information in such a way as to maximize and extend the impact. Personally I approve.

      --

      -pyrrho

    2. Re:Releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, Snowden gave the material to some newspapers, probably including Guardian. The plan was to inspect and slowly release them, just like is being done. I suppose this meets the critique Assange got for releasing his whole leak in a big pile of documents. I suspect the US government doesn't like the prolonged attention on the subject.

    3. Re:Releases by jessetaylor84 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Snowden specifically requested that the documents be released slowly, and only after careful analysis, rather than all at once. This is not to protect the police state, but for Snowden's own personal safety. Greenwald and other journalists are respecting the wishes of their source, and not throwing Snowden under the bus after he trusted them. You can read a bit about the reasoning behind their release method here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html

    4. Re:Releases by duranaki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Me too. It seems to work like this: Release A. Wait for government to say, "Okay. Sure. We did A. But that's it." Then, release B. "Okay. Sure. We did A and B. But that's it." It really makes the government look bad to have to revise its denials all the time. Plus, the slow release helps fight the "Look! Shiny!" defense. If you released everything at once, they could then distract us with a couple scandals and the media would never go back to this issue.

    5. Re:Releases by mrbester · · Score: 3, Informative

      Assange didn't have a choice after the password to the archive was printed in a book *by the Guardian* for all to see...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    6. Re:Releases by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      I absolutely love what this Snowden and Greenwald are doing. It's got to be driving the PR agents crazy as they try NOT to be honest and mitigate and massage the message. Every new revelation must be put in context so that the American people accept it, or at least think it's no big deal, and even that -- if it is a big deal, no harm intended.

      So then the next release shows; "Yeah, that thing about meta data only -- big lie." That thing about only foreign -- big lie. That thing about Snowden harmed security when the contractors have been selling the data to whomever has cash -- well, they don't know if that revelation is coming or not.

      So the PR reps have to get ahead of the leaks and anticipate them, and they might actually be tripped up into offering the truth without a hot poker in their eye. That's got to be purgatory for them. Their mouths have been watering to "fix the agency" and re-organize things to protect the public -- as if a few rules and some paint are going to make corrupt people do the right thing. These security agencies cannot be trusted, and they cannot be trusted to reform themselves, because they cannot be trusted. Did we cover the bit about "cannot be trusted"?

      The NSA's missing clearly does not have US security even on the radar -- it's all about control of public opinion or even worse; to extort people who get in the way of whatever the agenda is. They have to live in fear that the evidence releases will continue to erode whatever legitimacy they have left amongst the usual apologists, or the people who believe the apologists -- and they are BURNING THIS HOUSE OF CARDS DOWN.

      Every time a shill or apologist endorses the latest PR babble protecting the NSA and security state status quo - they burn a little more credibility.

      If this keeps up, the population will be completely deprogrammed to say; "Yup, Security!" And realize one day that there is no enemy but us to these groups and THEN we might get an actual Democracy or representation which has been a useful fiction since 1786 -- just to toss out a date.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    7. Re:Releases by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The press agencies (Guardian and New York Times are two I believe) have the documents.

      Whether they are coordinating with Snowden is not known that I know of. The press agencies are probably coordinating I would imagine.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    8. Re:Releases by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 2

      "Okay. Sure. We did A and B and C and ... and SI and SJ and SK. But that's it."

    9. Re:Releases by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Snowden specifically requested that the documents be released slowly, and only after careful analysis, rather than all at once. This is not to protect the police state, but for Snowden's own personal safety.

      The link you provided does not say it is for his safety. Straight from the horses mouth: "All I can say right now is the U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped."

      Note he didn't say more information would be leaked if something happened to him, just that the information will be leaked regardless.

      And from the reporter Greenwald: "However, Greenwald said that in his dealings with Snowden the 30-year-old systems administrator was adamant that he and his newspaper go through the document and only publish what served the public's right to know. 'Snowden himself was vehement from the start that we do engage in that journalistic process and we not gratuitously publish things,' Greenwald said. 'I do know he was vehement about that. He was not trying to harm the U.S. government; he was trying to shine light on it.' "

  10. Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    So we often see claims like the above in the summary:

    Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed, but we all know that means it is sent to a partner country for analysis, which is then sent back to the NSA."

    On the other hand:

    Frequently Asked Questions - Oversight

    5. Couldn't NSA simply ask its allies to provide them with information about U.S. persons?

    NSA is prohibited from requesting an ally to undertake activities that NSA itself is prohibited from conducting.

    I'm certainly willing to believe that other countries will accumulate info on US citizens and hold it, but does anyone have any evidence of the above claim?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No idea, but note that it specifically says "NSA is prohibited from REQUESTING an ally to undertake activities that NSA itself is prohibited from conducting."

    2. Re:Any evidence? by lambent · · Score: 2

      You have to be aware of the actions that the NSA has taken previously, the statements they make, and how their words don't match up with reality.

      So, I'm quite sure that if they say that they're not allowed to request info from an ally, they are telling a very sanitized version of the truth. They in fact don't request such info from an ally.

      What they don't say is that if an ally just happens to give them that info, they can't have it ... so that's almost certainly what they're doing.

      They're not asking for anything ... but they still end up getting it.

    3. Re:Any evidence? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That don't seem coherent with the fact that the NSA sharing raw intelligence information with Israel, you know, before analizing it and determining if they can or not conduct some activities on them. Then the allies don't have that limitation, of course. But, you know, if they can lie even to the congress without consequences, why they would tell you the truth?

    4. Re:Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:Any evidence? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with that commentary is that is establishes a premise that what the NSA was doing was "legal" and in the interest of national security. It would seem those two issues are in doubt. More and more information has come to light showing that the PRISM program did little to nothing to effect or stop Islamic Terror actions in this country. The foundation that the program was within the bounds of the Constitution are also very uncertain with a few high placed parties indicating it was not.

      Sen. Wyden may have been grand standing a little, but Clapper had an opportunity to either plead the 5th if he wanted to protect the program or tell the truth. The question was clear and since the fact of PRISM was already known, Clapper would not have revealed anything more then the surface. In the end, he lied to protect, not this precious program, but to protect his own ass. A lie first followed by dissimulation (lie, confuse, forget) was and is the political way to not get fired (or arrested) assuming you are "To Big to Fail"

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    6. Re:Any evidence? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      please run your post through a spellcheck... analyzing isn't spelled that way... and it just seems incredibly more disturbing in context... oh god.

    7. Re:Any evidence? by Jiro · · Score: 3, Informative

      It isn't really clear that they did in fact lie to Congress.

      From your own link:

      The attempts to parse his answer to Wydenâ(TM)s question as being technically truthful don't work and he should stop trying to claim that he didn't lie. But a dispassionate view of these circumstances shows that there are times when honesty is not always the best policy.

      In other words, even your link admits that they lied to Congress, the link just tries to argue that lying is justified.

    8. Re:Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I'm about 98% certain that English isn't his first language. I often strongly disagree with his ideas, but I'll cut him slack on spelling.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may cover a legal argument that the NSA can not request receipt or return data, but notice that other agencies have no such limitation. Nice try there mister sock puppet.

    10. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is clear that there were lies, what idiots try and do is justify the lying. It takes a special kind of person to deny reality and claim "no, didn't happen" when it clearly did happen.

    11. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence?

    12. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a non-official ally?

    13. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article the person linked for pity sake, it's not that fucking hard to read!

    14. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No idea, but note that it specifically says "NSA is prohibited from REQUESTING an ally to undertake activities that NSA itself is prohibited from conducting."

      Which does not prevent, from the way it is worded, an organization like the UKs GCHQ from OFFERING to their US ally to undertake activities that the NSA itself is prohibited from conducting.

    15. Re:Any evidence? by anagama · · Score: 1

      Before engaging Cold Fjord, be aware that he is the NSA's most prolific Slashdot shill, an inveterate bootlicker, cheerleader for all things police state.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    16. Re:Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Actually there is very little doubt that it was and is legal since every time the NSA actions have been tested in court in which a final judgment has been issued the NSA has won. People dispute the relevance to national security, but that doesn't really apply to the question of legality. It has been known for some time that most of the disrupted plots have been overseas. This Belgian plot may have been one of them.

      You're also mistaken about the question of Wyden and Clapper. If you bothered to actually read the whole thing you know that Wyden almost certainly knew the truth as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports. What he did was try to improperly trick or maneuver Clapper into disclosing classified information publicly. Can it really be said to be lying if Congress and the Congressman in question knew the actual truth from that same organization as it was disclosed in closed session? I don't think so.

      Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

      You aren't really answering the real questions there, but are embracing Wyden's shabby behavior.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It takes a special form of dyslexia to not understand what was going on.

      Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Congress and Wyden knew the truth. If they did, as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports, how can there have in fact been a genuine damaging lie?

      Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:Any evidence? by citizenr · · Score: 1

      5. Couldn't NSA simply ask its allies to provide them with information about U.S. persons?

      NSA is prohibited from requesting an ally to undertake activities that NSA itself is prohibited from conducting.

      sure
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    20. Re:Any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if lying for "national security" would be allowed, what about lying for "personal security"? should everybody start lying when questioned by police or whatever?

    21. Re:Any evidence? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Or even just, adding the data to the shared databases. The data is already shared, they don't have to ship it over. This loops back to their meaning of "collect," above

    22. Re:Any evidence? by mean+pun · · Score: 2

      Can it really be said to be lying if Congress and the Congressman in question knew the actual truth from that same organization as it was disclosed in closed session? I don't think so.

      That's illogical. Clapper said something he knew was not true. That's a lie. You may think that the question was inappropriate, and the lie justified, but it was a lie.

      And even if the question were inappropriate, it would not automatically justify a lie to answer it.

    23. Re:Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You are overlooking the fact that there are two data streams, one public and one private. The correct information could only legally be passed in private, and apparently was. The public data stream is irrelevant.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    24. Re:Any evidence? by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      The public data stream is irrelevant.

      That may be what NSA employees think, but the public disagrees. And rightly so, leaving all NSA practices so poorly supervised is very dangerous.

    25. Re:Any evidence? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      Till now I thought to give you the benefit you were not a fan boy of the NSA, but after readying your comments I can see I was wrong. As meanpun correctly states, it was a lie. In a situation of being under oath there is not dual stream, there is but one, telling the truth otherwise the whole system of justice is a sham. Clapper was asked a question, the intent of the Senator is not the issue, the question was legitimate on its own merits and required a truthful answer.

      To repeat, his answer could have been to say "I plead the fifth", "I cannot answer due to national security" or more directly, "I will not answer the question". He could have just said yes, which would do little to undermine national security (as we already knew the answer), instead, he lied. You try to justify his action by some lame idea that there is "private" data and secrets that must not be told. Bullshit. His lie and your justification do more to undermine the Security of this country then had he admitted the truth. Some in power, they feel they are above the law, above the framework of would holds this country together. That is seriously wrong thinking.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    26. Re:Any evidence? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      A good prosecutor will already know the answer to a question put to a hostile witness. Of course he knew the answer, he needed to hear it from the head of a government agency that was engaging in actions that seemingly went against the 4th amendment. The only sad result is that Clapper was not quickly hauled back and either fired or arrested for perjury thus re-enforcing the adage that there are some in government that are too big to arrest or call to question the legalities of their actions.

      Clapper does not protect this country, he protects his ass, his job, and his agency. His loyalties are screwed up.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    27. Re:Any evidence? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      sometimes those in charge need to be embarrassed. Cover it however you wish but a lie is a lie. and the government works for us, not the other way around. If reporters would actually do their jobs, this whitehouse would all be hind bars along with 90% of congress

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    28. Re:Any evidence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Since Congress and the Congressman in question already knew the answer, you can't argue that NSA was "poorly supervised" unless you argue that the Congressman is so simple minded that he can't keep important details of his job clear in his mind from one minute to the next. If you want to argue that, then you should be arguing that such a legislator is far too dangerous to elect due to mental deficiency. That also opens the question of why you would support such a mentally deficient Congressman unless you simply think he is in effect a reckless and unprincipled one. Of course supporting a reckless and unprincipled Congressman is troubling in its own right.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    29. Re:Any evidence? by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      Supervision of a powerful instrument of state such as the NSA is not only the task of some senate or congress committee or even the entire senate/congress, it is a task of the public. Yes, some parts of the NSA work must remain secret, and for those parts supervision by a smaller group of people is appropriate, but those parts should be as small as possible. I think it is very hard to argue that Clapper lied about something that should be in that small set of necessary secrets.

      Therefore, the congressman was doing his duty: he tried to force Clapper to inform the public, so that it could properly supervise the NSA. Clapper chose to lie instead.

  11. Here's another for your collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear NSA,

    Here is another text message for your collection!
    Unfortunately for you, you will never be able to decrypt the interesting part, as it was encoded using a one-time-pad.

    Hugs and Kisses.


    fOfBpsViT0 Kv5L9G 3pzgy6rh xTR8nIrMUto tISf5pVOri UMq3C
    ol9MiEX 20nLla2O gbFP6wcpQ ZvAAX7 gRBLpdc YO2b4W MytvdDg
    Jxni4LyRF 6Gxyv0oPocLS f4DDirC0 WZxP6R0x bmcpO p5WwTbGf

    1. Re:Here's another for your collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To my cousin Mohammed,

      c0f8bpVqrXzwKKu97rxTrMUtIf5pVrq3Col9M8nL2bPwQZxx9b0PTGGf18c3upJy4LF

      Allah Akbar,

      Anon AlTerrora

  12. why quibble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All wireless, satellite, wired, phone, text data. another words almost anything on the radio spectrum that is used to communicate as long as it is not being beamed from deep space. All the time times all the data. Of course the only are looking at one address at the cost of a forty billion or so, or so they would have you believe. Constant disinformation is a corollary of this type of persistent broad and deep security spying operation. So keep on believing, and keep on believing anything will really change, and keep on believing that is not being conducted by all want to be superpowers and empire builders such as ourselves...

  13. They send US citizen's text messages to Israel by Suiggy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

    America is a vassal state of Israel. Israel gets to decide when and where America goes to war in the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1881/text

    1. Re:They send US citizen's text messages to Israel by Suiggy · · Score: 2

      Oy vey, the goyim know! Shut him down!

  14. Not counting all the SnapChat broker messages by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Sadly, they don't give those to the SEC to prosecute.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  15. ONLY 0.2B ??? by redelm · · Score: 1

    Averaged across my family, we send about 10 SMS/day each. So the total US would send around 3 BILLION per day, and the rest-of-the-world using customary multipliers 6+ BILLION.

    Either the NSA has 2% filters (scary) or is incompetent. Or [likely] both!

    1. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Or they are able to filter out useless chatter from teenagers who account for 98% of the SMS traffic.

    2. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by 228e2 · · Score: 2

      . . . or your family doesnt represent the average SMS's sent a day?

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    3. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by gewalker · · Score: 3, Informative

      US message volume was 2.19 trillion times in 2012 (a 5% decline from 2011) this is equivalent to 6 billion each day. article

    4. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Averaged across my family, we send about 10 SMS/day each. So the total US would send around 3 BILLION per day, and the rest-of-the-world using customary multipliers 6+ BILLION.

      Either the NSA has 2% filters (scary) or is incompetent. Or [likely] both!

      I've sent 6 SMS messages this year, so extrapolated to the U.S. population that's about 110 MILLION per day

      Interesting how you think that the U.S. accounts for half the SMS traffic in the world?

    5. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's anecdotal, but so is this... The last time I sent or received an SMS was seven years ago. Most people I know who are above the age of 30, prefer voice or email as means of communication. Then you have those over 50, where many may not even own a cellphone.

      If my experience is even slightly reflective of SMS usage in the U.S., then only a rough third of the population frequently uses text messaging.

    6. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The average number of texts per phone is higher than 10, I'm guessing it's somewhere in the 20-30 range based on:

      Per this Business Insider article (by age group, and why no overall average!!!):
      * 18-24 year olds send 67 texts a day
      * 25-34, 37 texts a day
      * 34-44, 28 texts a day
      * 45-54, 17 texts a day
      * 55+, 8 texts a day

      Here are some stats (StatisticBrain.com) on daily text message numbers, for June 2012 the count was 14,100,000,000 per day (that's right, 14.1 billion).

      200 million text messages captured per day would be around 1.4%.

      Given this I figure they are using one or more filtering methods such as:
      1. Exclusion: Ignore "non-data" phrases such as "OMW".
      2. Inclusion: Include specific keywords, terrorist stuff and such.
      2. Geographically: potentially based on leads or evidence or "chatter".
      3. Person Of Interest: Person's of interest and 2-3 Bacons (communication links from target)

      The real question, in my opinion, is what do they do with them? No one is reading 200 million texts every day. I'm assuming they have applications that look for associations and patterns of specific keywords, probably with Person of Interest as a driver.

      That's what I would do... Probably should have posted Anon...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    7. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Averaged across my family, we send exactly zero SMS/day each (I've never SMSd family).
      Average of my total SMS usage across a year is about 5 messages (per year).

      Using my figures, that equates to about 1.5Billion SMS messages/year, or less than 500K/day for the US, so obviously the NSA filters catch better than 100% of the SMS usage of the world!!

      See how that works when you extrapolate using different people's numbers other than your own?

    8. Re:ONLY 0.2B ??? by redelm · · Score: 1
      Thank you for the more precise stats. 14.1 B/day is not essentially different from my estimate of 9 B/day and does not change any conclusions.

      If anything, it is worse -- NSA is capturing 1.4%, some combination of good filters and missed streams.

  16. Non-story here by Trachman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't want to rain on the festival, but text messages is only one sub-set of the data that is being spied on. Here is the partial list, as presented by http://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html internet searches (Google, Bing, Yahoo, Baidu) websites visited (all anti-government websites and your xxx-rated websites becomes a permanent record) emails sent and received social media activity (Facebook, Twitter, World of Warcraft, Snapchat etc) blogging activity including posts read, written, and commented on videos watched and/or uploaded online photos viewed and/or uploaded online music downloads mobile phone GPS-location data mobile phone apps downloaded phone call records text messages sent and received online purchases and auction transactions bookstore receipts credit card/ debit card transactions bank statements cable television shows watched and recorded commuter toll records parking receipts electronic bus and subway passes / Smartpasses travel itineraries border crossings surveillance cameras medical information including diagnoses and treatments prescription drug purchases guns and ammunition sales educational records arrest records driver license information Of course, this information together with targeted SIGINT is put together and is being analyzed to identify any risks, as decided by policy makers. So, Text messages is only a small piece of SIGINT

    1. Re:Non-story here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want to rain on the festival, but text messages is only one sub-set of the data that is being spied on. Here is the partial list, as presented by http://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html

      internet searches (Google, Bing, Yahoo, Baidu)
      websites visited (all anti-government websites and your xxx-rated websites becomes a permanent record)
      emails sent and received
      social media activity (Facebook, Twitter, World of Warcraft, Snapchat etc)
      blogging activity including posts read, written, and commented on
      videos watched and/or uploaded online
      photos viewed and/or uploaded online
      music downloads
      mobile phone GPS-location data
      mobile phone apps downloaded
      phone call records
      text messages sent and received
      online purchases and auction transactions
      bookstore receipts
      credit card/ debit card transactions
      bank statements
      cable television shows watched and recorded
      commuter toll records
      parking receipts
      electronic bus and subway passes / Smartpasses
      travel itineraries
      border crossings
      surveillance cameras
      medical information including diagnoses and treatments
      prescription drug purchases
      guns and ammunition sales
      educational records
      arrest records
      driver license information

      Of course, this information together with targeted SIGINT is put together and is being analyzed to identify any risks, as decided by policy makers.

      So, Text messages is only a small piece of SIGINT

      Precisely. Well said. As usual when someone hits the nail right on the head, no one tends to reply or acknowledge it in any way. That's why I am replying to this post right now.

      Most people prefer to turn a blind eye to the truth. Real truth still frightens most kiddies. It's better to make jokes and dismiss serious matters without ever considering them...

    2. Re:Non-story here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. The media focuses on 1 or 2 small aspects of the program but never gives the public anything close to the full picture. It's the "All Seeing Eye" folks. It's "Total Information Awareness". Their terms, not mine. And they mean what they say. It's pretty obvious what is and has been going on.

      I laugh everytime they refer to the Snowden leaks as "Revelations". Yeah they are 'Revelations' if your head has been buried in the sand for the last 40 years...

    3. Re:Non-story here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want to rain on the festival, but text messages is only one sub-set of the data that is being spied on. Here is the partial list, as presented by http://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html

      internet searches (Google, Bing, Yahoo, Baidu)
      websites visited (all anti-government websites and your xxx-rated websites becomes a permanent record)
      emails sent and received
      social media activity (Facebook, Twitter, World of Warcraft, Snapchat etc)
      blogging activity including posts read, written, and commented on
      videos watched and/or uploaded online
      photos viewed and/or uploaded online
      music downloads
      mobile phone GPS-location data
      mobile phone apps downloaded
      phone call records
      text messages sent and received
      online purchases and auction transactions
      bookstore receipts
      credit card/ debit card transactions
      bank statements
      cable television shows watched and recorded
      commuter toll records
      parking receipts
      electronic bus and subway passes / Smartpasses
      travel itineraries
      border crossings
      surveillance cameras
      medical information including diagnoses and treatments
      prescription drug purchases
      guns and ammunition sales
      educational records
      arrest records
      driver license information

      Of course, this information together with targeted SIGINT is put together and is being analyzed to identify any risks, as decided by policy makers.

      So, Text messages is only a small piece of SIGINT

      Everytime I reply to this post in AGREEMENT. My post is DELETED! This is my 3rd attempt at agreeing with the point being made here. I guess the post hits a little too close to home for some...

      FINE FU MODS! Go ahead and BAN ME. Make my day.

      Why would I want to participate in your CENSORED FORUM anyway??? Maybe you pathetic control freaks should ponder that....

  17. Payback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is your logic of "If you have nothing to hide....". People who make such philosophical statements are mostly guilty of actually doing such activity.

  18. TextSecure by Charliemopps · · Score: 1
    1. Re:TextSecure by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      Only end-to-end with other TS users, unfortunately.

      CM11 incorporates TS and makes it transparent to the user, which is nice, so everyone using CM11 gets end-to-end with every other CM11 user.

    2. Re:TextSecure by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      So, roughly one guy in my address book?

  19. Re:Fix: Use iMessage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until we find out that iMessage is backdoored or used a weak crypto that can be cracked

  20. Securing our communications ... by jessetaylor84 · · Score: 1

    I hope that we can develop an open-source smartphone (both hardware and software) soon that will enable people to encrypt their messages and other personal data. Some message encryption solutions exist right now, but they are all on closed/proprietary platforms that can't be trusted (especially in light of recent news re: the NSA's hardware backdoors). Until we have a secure, trustworthy, open platform to work from, we'll continue to fall prey to the NSA.

    1. Re:Securing our communications ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will not fall prey to the NSA. They likely don't give a shit about even one single person who reads Slashdot.

  21. Boarded a plane after a bomb threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millions of data is take every day and even after a guy makes a bomb threat to the police and the airline, he still is able to get on a plane.

  22. Re:Fix: Use iMessage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That makes no sense, as some of the previous presentations showed that all iOS devices are compromised and that the compromise will "always not fail". A curious bit of wording for sure, but essentially it does not matter what you use on iOS if they have full control to every device that uses it if they wish.

  23. Hmm. by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    Headline: NSA Collects 200 Million Text Messages Per Day

    Translation: They're tracking about 5 teenagers.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  24. "Removed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. As soon as they've filed it away elsewhere, just in case you ever annoy them.

  25. lets skip to the end by shadowrat · · Score: 2

    the NSA is recording everything we all do. now let me know when there's a news story about what we can do about it.

    1. Re:lets skip to the end by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      the NSA is recording everything we all do. now let me know when there's a news story about what we can do about it.

      Any privacy document or contract we sign has a couple of provisions for 1) Law Enforcement and 2) Medical reasons. Understand that this is monitoring without warrant, so anything obtained via this method would (theoretically) be inadmissable in court... Bill of Rights blah blah blah. However if someone were to text a serious threat to many lives, wouldn't it be in societies best interests to apprehend the individual before they do something?

      If we did away with all government surveillance tomorrow, what would we gain?
      Peace of mind that some senator and/or some NSA goon somewhere didn't see your ascii boob text to your friend.
      What would we lose? Oversight on potential criminal activity.

      I think the biggest hangups are that all of this was a secret that was kept from the public and that many people are probably only offended because they weren't given a choice and don't want "Big Brother" to keep on eye on them. If you're not engaged in any criminal activity and otherwise only send cat pictures to friends and family, why would you care if the Gov is keeping an eye? What about Google? Facebook? Comcast? Time Warner?

    2. Re:lets skip to the end by cfulton · · Score: 2

      Really? Really? You don't see any danger in all this. From the 20's until the early 70's J Edgar used his organization to collect information about citizens of the United States. He used that information to blackmail and criminalize people whom he did not agree with or had personal issues with. That really happened. Now assume that the directory of the NSA starts to have a personal agenda like of J Edgar. Maybe he doesn't like Jews or Atheists. He starts to get his minions to use all this data to fight Atheist terrorists (or whatever). Anyone yes even you can be blackmailed or criminalized with enough access to their personal lives. And we don't know about because it is all a big secret and for our own good.
      So, I'm not a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut, but I have read enough history to know that what they are doing at the NSA will not have a good long term outcome. We need as Americans to put a stop to it now. It is already out of hand.

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    3. Re:lets skip to the end by isorox · · Score: 1

      the NSA is recording everything we all do. now let me know when there's a news story about what we can do about it.

      Lets see, if only you had a constitution that knuckleheads think protect them against the state.

    4. Re:lets skip to the end by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      ... or, more likely, anyone who holds a differing political view can be labelled as a dissenter.

    5. Re:lets skip to the end by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 1

      Donate to the EFF if you can. Joining the fight feels good.

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
  26. And of those 200 million text messages... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Over 150 million of them contain phrases like:
    "OMG, yur my BFF!"

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:And of those 200 million text messages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's quite in line with their interest in who-knows-who metadata.

  27. Non US data is removed? by Punto · · Score: 1

    I thought the NSA was covering their ass by saying they're not spying on american citizens, only foreign threats, now they're saying they _only_ spy on US communications? which is it?

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  28. What don't they collect? by Subm · · Score: 1

    I was going to suggest it would soon be easier to list what online communications they don't collect, but I think we passed that point a while ago.

    Is there any online privacy they show signs of respecting?

    Do they see any reason not to do what they're doing? I mean, the Fourth Amendment didn't seem like much of a road block.

  29. This is sadly what Americans want by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    The polls are still in favor of expanding government surveillance to protect us all from "turr." Pisses me off to no end, but that's the democracy we're asking for. I gave up after I saw the numbers last year post-Snowden.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:This is sadly what Americans want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, Osama bin Laden had the goal to abolish the U.S.A. He handed over his work to the NSA, and they are working day and night to convince the American populace that their constitution is not worth fighting for and should be abolished.

      Their approach to terrorizing the U.S.A. out of its accomplishments has been far more successful than his.

    2. Re:This is sadly what Americans want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the democracy we're asking for

      If you asked for it ("we" includes you), then why are you implying that you don't approve of it?

      How is it possible that you are a victim and a perpetrator at the same time?

    3. Re:This is sadly what Americans want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sadly we don't live in the democracy but the illusion of one.. in a democracy we would be allowed to voice our opinions over these released documents (which were never approved or called on by the people) in the free and clear and journalists wouldn't be repeatedly faced with threats or harm and or jail time for doing what their role in society is to do, Act as a check against the government and allow for education on the important points that should be considered for the next vote.

      humanities fall is its laziness

      "We must all fear bad men, but what we must fear most of all is the indifference of good men." - Boondock Saints opening scene

    4. Re:This is sadly what Americans want by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Because this is a democracy. We the people have decided we want expanded surveillance. I, personally, do not.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    5. Re:This is sadly what Americans want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving up is what they want from you. The polls are rigged.

  30. some fishing expedition this is... by swschrad · · Score: 2, Funny

    there are fishing expeditions by subpoena. by break-and-enter. by throwing dynamite overboard.

    freakin' NSA is tossing nukes to try and find one bluegill in the ocean.

    there oughta be a law...

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:some fishing expedition this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      freakin' NSA is tossing nukes to try and find one bluegill in the ocean.

      Well think about it - underwater nukes would be an incredibly effective way to fish. Not only would you get an enormous haul, but the fish would become superfish (and hence bigger and tastier) due to all that radiation.

  31. Re:Fix: Use iMessage. by illestov · · Score: 2

    The Guardian and other places are releasing it slowly so they can keep their 15 minutes of fame going as long as possible.

    In reality, just use iMessage, and this isn't an issue.

    did you hear that at an Apple Store ?

  32. Meta data by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

    So much for "We only collect Meta Data"
    Liars

    1. Re:Meta data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMS messages are meta data about you.

    2. Re:Meta data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the NSA's "meta-data isn't data" argument is transparently false. The term "meta-data" has the word data in it. How much more obvious can you get?? Case closed, thank you audience, you're wonderful, I'll be here until the end of the week!

  33. Text This ( Score: +5, PatRIOTic ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morons

    Yours In Obscurity,
    K. Trout

  34. Attention Span of Knuckle Heads by csumpi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have missed just about every point.

    This information released piece by piece is the most ingenious idea from Snowden and friends. If they released it in one batch it would be forgotten in two weeks because of the Attention Span of Knuckle Heads.

    Here your post is an exact proof of that. You must have missed those leaks about the RSA being paid to allow easier breaking of their encryption, Mac webcams recording without the light on, NSA's private backdoor into iPhones, or Apple's logo on many of the documents. So you say iMessage? I would not be the least bit surprised if NSA had access to that, too. Especially after all the favorable decisions handed out by the government to Apple recently.

    And you're blaming a newspaper? Because they are doing the job of journalism as they are supposed to? They are the bad guys here? Come on man.

    .

    1. Re:Attention Span of Knuckle Heads by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      So you say iMessage? I would not be the least bit surprised if NSA had access to that, too.

      This is probably the reason iMessage/iChat doesn't support third-party encryption tools like OTR. Apple used to offer encryption for the mac.com subscribers, but I believe that has since been removed.

      Apple isn't alone on this, anything made by Microsoft is suspected of having a backdoor.

    2. Re:Attention Span of Knuckle Heads by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Apple isn't alone on this, anything made by Microsoft is suspected of having a backdoor.

      To be fair, when the front door of Microsoft products are secured, it's only a screen door, anyway.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  35. Re:Fix: Use iMessage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He heard it just last night from Steve Jobs Himslelf.

  36. Re:Yeah, but WE'll have the last laugh! by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    what in the actual fuck are you talking about.

  37. With apologies to Lee Greenwood by ameyer17 · · Score: 2

    I'm not proud to be an American
    Cause I know that I'm not free
    I pity all the men who died
    So Bush and Obama could take my rights from me
    Now let me stand up next to you
    And defeat them still today
    Cause there ain't no doubt they hate this land
    Bush and Obama hate the USA...

    Seriously, everyone responsible for the excesses of the National Sodomization of America should be extraordinarily rendered then executed without trial for treason.

  38. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes. Yes, that would totally work. Clearly, the people behind SELinux have no fucking clue what they're doing.

    Derp.

    'sides, everyone knows the NSA uses Mongo. With that much data, you need web scale.

    1. Re:Yes. by biek · · Score: 1

      'sides, everyone knows the NSA uses Mongo.

      Send a candygram and they're done for.

  39. US data by countach · · Score: 1

    Has there been a revelation that the NSA sends US data overseas to avoid the rules? I don't remember that revelation coming out, although I wouldn't put it past them.

    1. Re:US data by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Has there been a revelation that the NSA sends US data overseas to avoid the rules? I don't remember that revelation coming out, although I wouldn't put it past them.

      While not on NSA this is what rovio.com does with the info they collect, it's in their ToS. Angry Birds being just one of their products. -note: I have them blocked at the router level and haven't read the ToS in over a year, they might of taken it out but it's what they do Their ToS also made me aware of Flurry.com (also blocked at the router level).

    2. Re:US data by hguorbray · · Score: 2

      that's been going on since the 70s

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

      Using shared SIGINT The UK gets the US to spy on it's people to circumvent UK privacy laws The US gets the UK to spy on it's people to circumvent US privacy laws, etc Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all involved in this arrangement known as the FiveEyes

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement#Controversy

      -I'm just sayin'

  40. How can we tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the NSA is lying?

    Easy.

    Their lungs exist.

  41. And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What have you done about it?

    Let the first man who has done something about it cast the first stone.

    1. Re:And by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That makes no sense. They're the one advocating taking to the streets and guillotineing people. Not me.

      We have all the tools we need to improve our country and we decline to use them. The voter turnout for people under 35 is a disgrace. If young people just voted at the same rate as old people, this country would transform overnight.

    2. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      YES!!! Instead of our tax dollars being spent on shit old people want, it would be spent on shit that young people want. PERFECT.

    3. Re:And by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry if my proposal isn't as exciting as murdering people in the streets.

    4. Re:And by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Voting just replaces the public faces. The real problem, especially in DC, is the Congressional staffers who are in there for life. By and large, Congressional Representatives, be they Senators or Representatives, just do what their chief's of staff tell them to do. The staffers are the ones who write the bills and craft the laws that are the foundation of all of the problems we are facing.

    5. Re:And by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The Representatives and Senators are entirely responsible for the actions of their staffers, and the voters are responsible for the Representatives and the Senators.

    6. Re:And by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Young people voted overwhelmingly for the president who has authorized this data collection. If more of them voted we would be no better off.

    7. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, are they going to vote for the corporately animated left side of the coiler, or the right of the very same variety?

    8. Re:And by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      It's not just about who we vote for. If young people doubled their participation in politics, it would change the entire national discussion and political priorities.

    9. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Young people overwhelmingly voted for bush?

      Many documents of Snowden's date from the reign of King George II.

    10. Re:And by Digicaf · · Score: 1

      Probably wouldn't help as much as you might think. Most of the young people I've talked to over the years have been extremely under-educated and too sheltered to have a well rounded world-view or to avoid manipulation. Their understanding of basic economics, for example, has been shockingly bad. I'd shudder to think what kind of insane policy they could be made to support.

      For example, take one horrifying conversation I had at a college between myself and several "financial advisors" (young 20-somethings fresh out of college) in the fin-aid department. We were talking about student loans when the talk got political. They wanted to support full federal subsidization so that people could get "free college". When I pointed out that it wasn't free in that case, and that the cost was just shifted to taxpayers they literally couldn't understand it. So I asked "who would pay the professors and staff", to which their reply was "Why do they need to get paid". They were being completely serious.

      Getting them more involved would be no less damaging than the religious nutjobs and ultra-conservatives that seem to be so common lately.

    11. Re:And by davester666 · · Score: 1

      There was no choice on the ballot that would have resulted in something different happening w.r.t. the NSA's bulk data collection.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re:And by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      No it wouldn't. We have compulsory voting here in Australia. We get the same voting patterns as other non-compulsory democracy. Basic stats shows you only need a couple of thousand people to figure out the opinions of millions, so if you had half as many voters or twice as much, the result would end up pretty much the same.

    13. Re:And by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      More people ran for President than just Obama and Romney. Also, there were hundreds of Congressional races.

  42. Re:Yeah, but WE'll have the last laugh! by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    I would *definitely* watch that movie!

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  43. God is this old news... really old by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    It was a common knowledge in the 80's that every Usenet/newsgroup went through NSA, whether it was read (flagged) depended upon key words. This included FidoNet and any other means of messaging.

    There was a list that circulated with THE WORDS that would flag a message, they were few at the time and I only remember one, "nuclear". I live in the USA.

    It's not a large leap to imagine text messages going through or collected via the Internet (storage) to be pulled in as well.

    It taught me early that any post I make could show up on the front page of some newspaper. I also don't flame and very rarely cuss (more so in case my kids look me up). Bad grammar and all.

    1. Re:God is this old news... really old by hebertrich · · Score: 1

      So you accepted that you have no freedom of speech and that's a tragedy.
      The USA is now the USSR . No freedoms. Not even being able to write words without
      a secret agent looking in what you say .

      It'sw fu***** horrible when you thinkk about it .. yet you stay motionless and do nothing .

    2. Re:God is this old news... really old by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      So you accepted that you have no freedom of speech and that's a tragedy.
      The USA is now the USSR . No freedoms. Not even being able to write words without
      a secret agent looking in what you say .

      It'sw fu***** horrible when you thinkk about it .. yet you stay motionless and do nothing .

      This is a question too hard and reveling for me to answer, let alone make sense. :}

      But do I expect my every message on the Internet to not only be read by others, but used to their benefit? Yes, www.TomsHardware.com is an good example. I'd never heard of them, but they kept popping up with old UseNet post of mine as first hits on Google searches. TomsHardware has thousands of my post made to look like I had posted them to their website. They pull in newsgroups and pass them off as their own, one being a group I frequented for years.

  44. Re:Yeah, but WE'll have the last laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fairy tales

  45. A good NSA agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a dead NSA agent.
    Same goes for GCHQ, DCRI and the likes.

  46. What about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dimple monkey twice the pudding octopi for tango man. Very blender shoe, cellular, scooter my daisy heads. Diddley day.

  47. NSA collects contents of all electronic messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot constantly attempts to downplay the extent of NSA spying. The NSA collects every possible electronic message from every possible source, including mobile phone voice calls, and stores them in massive data centres exactly modelled on those used by the 'civilian' side of Google. Here the data is indexed, translated, voice-to-text processed, location and face recognised, mined and searched, using software systems almost entirely designed by Google.

    Shadow Google facilities can be found in every partner nation of the USA- the major one outside the USA being the British GCHQ of course. The intention of the NSA is 99.999% FULL SURVEILLANCE. Every other form of NSA activity, including finding so-called 'terrorist' operations, is the tiniest fraction of NSA business, and only exists to create 'plausible deniability'.

    These are the REAL reasons the NSA has a budget massively larger than most of you comprehend, and increasing at a frightening rate each year:
    1) NSA full surveillance "CLOSES THE LOOP" for mainstream media propaganda programs. The elite can put out complicated propaganda campaigns (like "Syria is the new Nazi Germany, and must be bombed immediately") and test public feedback in almost real time. The 'chatter' that the NSA gathers (and the vile shills attempt to reassure you is of no interest to anyone in power) immediately informs as to the current 'success' of a mainstream media campaign, allowing the propaganda to be modified, or even abandoned if the feedback is that negative.

    This function of FULL SURVEILLANCE intelligence gathering is the ONLY reason every government of the West has agreed to work hand-in-glove with the NSA. Politicians care only about their future, and political campaigns are at their most perfect when the mind of the electorate can be 'read' in real-time.

    2) NSA full surveillance provides 'coercion' material used to 'persuade' people of power and influence to 'agree' to go along with policies of those in true power. For instance, some 'kid' playing Xbox and using the N-word 10 times a minute may one day be a rising politician whose career will come to a crashing end if video/audio recording of such youthful 'racism' are released in the 'press'. The NSA allows the wholesale BLACKMAIL of hundreds of thousands of individuals in key positions in society. In History, all intelligence agencies were created with this one goal in mind. The NSA merely has the computer tools to be infinitely more efficient than was ever possible before.

    3) NSA full surveillance allows the earliest identifying of rising grass-roots political/social movements, so they may be 'strangled' at birth (with minimum publicity in the 'press') or co-opted.

    1,2,3 allow the people in real power to not only stay in power, but to accumulate even greater control of their nations as each year passes. New THOUGHT CRIMES are constantly created and tested ("she doesn't believe in global warming", "he doesn't support gay marriage") in the mainstream media, and George Soros controlled neo-liberal alternative media, so that new forms of coercive leverage can be created. "Burn the witch" has always played very well as a tactic in the USA, and continues today more effectively than ever.

    Snowden and Assange are but dupes. They revealed NOTHING but a carefully crafted list of limited truths designed to INOCULATE public opinion. The greater part of the sheeple population fall prey to the "time to move on" ploy. A smaller part fall prey to the "I'm cynical and thus superior" ploy. Those smart enough to be appropriately horrified by the every growing abuses of the elites in power (and people like Bill Gates boast about what they are doing to us- go Google 'inBloom' for instance) all too often find themselves isolated by others in their circles who stick fingers in their ears and say "la,la,la- I don't want to hear about this any more- it makes me too depressed to think about it- shut up and go away".

    Meanwhile, millions of American sheeple willingly place the NSA home spy platform, the

  48. Tired of getting screwed ? To Revolt or shut up ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will you americans revolt ? I mean .. it keeps piling up and you guys just stay there motionless ..
    The time to be nice is over , these f******* are getting you up the backside coming and going and don't give a
    dang about the laws , the needs nor the wants of the People of the USA . So what are you waiting for ?
    The day you got a NSA agent living in your house to make sure they get everything , got an eye on you 24/7
    and you lost all your freedoms ? Oh it altready happened eh ? .. then there's no alternatives left.

    Walk on Washington

  49. Code by Master+Moose · · Score: 2

    Dat mst b y so mny txts r snt n code 2 stp da spyng

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  50. There's nothing we can do !! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only $100?

    But then, I'd bet $1000 (if I had it) that they wouldn't do anything effective

    As a naturalized citizen of the United of America I can tell you that there is *NOTHING* we, the voters of American, can effectively do, to change the system.

    The system is so entrenched, with its roots dug so deep into so many fields, affecting so many people's livelihoods, that even if 90% of the voters (who do go out to vote) of the America decide that "Enough is enough", that is still NOTHING we can do !

    "Vote them out", you say ?

    When you vote them out, who would you vote in to replace them ?

    The whole scenario of a supposedly "Two Party System" is a sham.

    They are JUST THE SAME OLD SHIT, like two sides of a same coin.

    Whether we vote Republicans or for Democrats, we vote for the same fucking system.

    "Vote for somebody else then," you say.

    Who ?

    Third party ? Libertarians ?

    I *AM* a libertarian, but even me know that the "Libertarian party" is worse than a fucking joke.

    Every single day the system fill us with nonsensical topics such as "abortion", "welfare abuses", "prayer in the school" and so on, so to occupy our attention.

    So we have the line drawn in between the people along the line of "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice", and people having protests over "Gay Parade" (on both sides), and so what ?

    I mean, those are the devices that the fucking system used to divert attention AWAY from the hundreds of millions of morons living in America anyway.

    I am sorry to say that, for even I, as an American, have to admit that there are just too many morons in America and we have been moronic for way too long.

    The so-called "Constitution" is no more.

    Yes, there is still a piece of paper with the "We, the people..." written on it, but it might be as well printed "Made in China" on back, because the system doesn't give a fuck of that piece of paper anymore.

    Do I sound pissed ? Sure I am !

    But what the fuck more can I do ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. You should really leave such a terrible country right away.

    2. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. You should really leave such a terrible country right away.

      I'm pretty sure american domestic opression doesn't hold a candle to american imperial oppression :/

    3. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      America is imperially oppressing every single country on Earth?

    4. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best comment I have seen in a LONG time. This is why I read at -1.

    5. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by cffrost · · Score: 5, Interesting

      [I've taken the liberty of reflowing your text and eliminating your extraneous spaces preceding terminal punctuation, in order to improve both cohesion and my ability to reply.]

      Whether we vote Republicans or for Democrats, we vote for the same fucking system. "Vote for somebody else then," you say. Who? Third party? Libertarians?

      Yes — absolutely I say vote "vote for third parties" (especially to voters in "safe" states (i.e., non-swing states)). I also say "vote your conscience," "voting for 'lesser' evil is still voting for evil," "third parties need your vote — some D/R candidates don't even want you to vote," and "voting for a third party isn't 'wasting your vote; voting D/R (especially in a "safe" state) is wasting your vote."

      The third parties are one of our best shots for restoring liberty, and they deserve the support of everyone who values the liberties that the authoritarian D/R Corporate Party has sacrificed on the altars of control, security theater, and corruption. (I usually recommend that people on the left vote Green, and people on the right vote Libertarian — both parties' anti-authoritarian platforms emphasize the restoration of civil liberties. It's a recommendation I encourage others to espouse if they like, as it conceals no left/right agenda.)

      I *AM* a libertarian, but even me know that the "Libertarian party" is worse than a fucking joke.

      I'm a left/socialist-libertarian, and I disagree. The Libertarian Party's last presidential candidate — Gary Johnson — was an excellent choice for them; a completely sane, former two-term governor of New Mexico. As a left-libertarian, I was in agreement with nearly all of his social and foreign policy positions.

      Every single day the system fill us with nonsensical topics such as "abortion", "welfare abuses", "prayer in the school" and so on, so to occupy our attention. So we have the line drawn in between the people along the line of "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice", and people having protests over "Gay Parade" (on both sides), and so what? I mean, those are the devices that the fucking system used to divert attention AWAY from the hundreds of millions of morons living in America anyway.

      I congratulate you for your unusual recognition of this for what it is (a distraction) — but it also illustrate the vast majority of issues on which the D/R factions of The Corporate Party are in agreement, as well as serving as divisive mechanism of control of the populace, via "divide & conquer" and by dissuading us from uniting against the government or their draconian policies. This strategy failed recently, in a wonderful coming-together between left and right for the "Restore the Fourth" rally in DC to oppose mass-surveillance. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a trend that will continue all the way to the voting booths in 2016.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    6. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a naturalized citizen of the United of America I can tell you that there is *NOTHING* we, the voters of American, can effectively do, to change the system.

      Sounds like the rationlisation of a victim for being passive, but perhaps you just don't understand how the system works. Sure the parties all collude to present you with an illusion of choices they dictate (in reality the choices of the bodies that fund them), and all politicians no matter whether they're altruists or not cannot represent all the "needs" of the electorate (they also have to represent the people who voted against them) - but you can do something to force the election issues, and in turn affect legislation and how government (and government funded) bodies operate. Before each election the parties research the issues they lost votes to the previous election in order to hijack issues and gain a majority - so vote for single issue candidates that don't stand a chance of getting in. The biggest lie politicians tell is that without "major" parties (duopolies, e.g. liberal/labor, republican/democrat) governement will cease to function. Their rationalisation is that too many parties means government gets tied up in compromise negotiations - which is true only in that it stands in the way of ramrodding through the wishes of their major funders. All government is based on compromise, the more it has to be negotiated the more influence the voter has.

      Additionally all elections (at least according to the funding records in Australia) are won by the party that spends the most money - and they don't get the majority of their funding from individuals. By spreading the votes across a large number of parties the funders have to spread their funds as well, greatly reducing their influence. That's all "lobbyists" basically do, make promises to politicians about the funds they'll provide for the next election campaign. And the next election campaign is almost always the greatest influence on any politician.

      Just some thoughts....

      ~Demonoid Penguin (moderating)

    7. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I live in a country where occasionally parties get decimated or worse and replaced by third parties. All that happens is the people from the decimated party move to the third party and pretty quick things are back to where they were if we're lucky. Sometimes it's even worse as while the parties are doing their dance one gets in with just over a third of the vote and are even worse and do irreparable damage.
      Democracy is liked by the establishment as it is the easiest to manipulate.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Evtim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Back in the days of totalitarianism our history teacher told us once "It does not matter which party wins in the US, their imperialist politics does not change. It is the illusion of choice" . After the class we all said to each other "Ah, that was a nice piece of communist propaganda".
      And then the system collapsed, we went abroad and saw for ourselves. The teacher, at least in this respect, was right! How depressing...

    9. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You'd better believe it.
      Looked at any treaties or international agreements lately?
      Oh and wars and drones and bombs and shit too.

    10. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 1

      But what the fuck more can I do ?

      Lead the revolution? You've got my vote.

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    11. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's a start...it's called Wolf-PAC. We can pass an amendment to fix the fundamental problem, MONEY, and bypass Congress in doing so:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-PAC

    12. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      As a citizen of a country that has 5 parties in parliament with one (left) having majority and 4 (right) having minority I'm pretty sure that getting more parties does not solve anything. In my opinion the solution lies in educating the public. Btw, that is on the same level of hopelessness as getting rid of two party system in US.

    13. Re:There's nothing we can do !! by pinkstuff · · Score: 1

      Wow. You should really leave such a terrible country right away.

      And go where?

      Everyone is spying on everyone, thanks to governments world wide being persuaded to join the US NSA effort. It wouldn't be sooooo bad if it was just for security reasons, but it is clearly more for corporate greed than security.

    14. Re: There's nothing we can do !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody shut up and drink your Cool Aid!

  51. Today Schneier Briefed Congress on the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bruce was asked to tell congress about the NSA because in congress' view, the NSA wasn't talking. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/today_i_briefed.html

  52. Somebody should spoof one of those commercials by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    One of those "in honor of the important things you do" Sprint commercials.

  53. How I would discredit Snowden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    1) Release a series of correct and provable claims about spying activities, with Snowden's name attached.
    2) Release a series of claims that slightly stretch the bounds of credibility beyond the last claim, with Snowden's name attached.
    3) Release a series of claims about time machines and space aliens impregnating PBR drinkers, with Snowden's name attached.

  54. Legal, Protected By Law, Open To Anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sum it up Dan'O.

    Right on Jack'O.

  55. Hey NSA by russotto · · Score: 1

    I just bought a 60 burner phones, mailed all but one to various locations around the country, and texted "Meet me in Linithicum with 1kg U-235 at 9am April 1, 2014". Have a nice day.

  56. It's ok coldie I'll take this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show us the proof that it's actually happening now?

    Can I have a gold star?

  57. Goatse by jammo · · Score: 1

    These guys must by now be fairly desensitised to seeing Goatse.

  58. Redphone by flyingfsck · · Score: 1
    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  59. Re:Tired of getting screwed ? To Revolt or shut up by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    When will you americans revolt ?

    Oh, don't you worry, Americans are plenty revolting.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  60. 17th January 2014 by sumoinsanity · · Score: 1

    The 17th of January is Michelle Obama's 50th birthday. On this day in 1961 President Eisenhower issued the clarion call for all citizens to be vigilant against oppression from the Military Industrial Complex. It is the anniversary of a decisive victory in the American Revolutionary War in 1781, the Battle of Cowpens. It is the anniversary of the overthrow of the monarchy in Hawaii in 1893 thus allowing the President to be born into an American state.

    Will the President venerate the date and thank Edward Snowden?

  61. Think about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A large slice of these messages completely the same. In the other hand, there are the original content messages that will turn into the repeated messages and a very small amount of interesting communication for them.

    What really worries me now is when will humans talk using libraries, like programmers do using computer language.

  62. America is clueless on privacy issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America has allowed this to happen. Privacy was mistakenly taken for granted and now we are upset because our government has the ability to monitor us?
    Its too late privacy advocates, go back to your Facebook page and Google Chromebook and stop trying to reverse what you have ignored for so long.

  63. NSA and CIA Both Suck Cock for Bus Fare by GordonJenkins · · Score: 1

    I'm afraid that's classified, so there will be neither confirmation nor denial.

    1. Re:NSA and CIA Both Suck Cock for Bus Fare by GordonJenkins · · Score: 1

      Keith Alexander has never sucked a single dick. To put that statement in logical terms: The number of dicks sucked by Keith Alexander has never been equal to one.

  64. Interesting. What about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its interesting that you said,

    "The PATRIOT ACT happened in 2001!!!! The USA Today reported on this in **2006** http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm "

    This appears to be a complete lie since it has been published and revised 16 times but only in 2013.

    Your full of shit and an obvious liar and probably a a Troll judging by the content of your message.

    Of course I knew the government was collecting data after 2001 but that information came from different channels.

    Do a better job next time of making things up!

  65. did you go to the link? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    so you're calling the thing I linked to a lie?

    what part from that USA Today article, specifically, is a 'lie'?

    second question, you knew the government was collecting data after 2001, but...what?

    "that information came from different channels?"

    so you knew the government was spying on you through different channels since 2001...WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID

    so you agree with me and think the link I posted to the USA Today article is a 'lie'?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett