Slashdot Mirror


New Snowden Leak: of 160000 Intercepted Messages, Only 10% From Official Targets

An anonymous reader writes in with the latest news about NSA spying from documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post. Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else. Many of them were Americans. Nearly half of the surveillance files, a strikingly high proportion, contained names, e-mail addresses or other details that the NSA marked as belonging to U.S. citizens or residents. NSA analysts masked, or "minimized," more than 65,000 such references to protect Americans' privacy, but The Post found nearly 900 additional e-mail addresses, unmasked in the files, that could be strongly linked to U.S. citizens or U.S. residents."

201 comments

  1. Re:What's worse? by conscarcdr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, let's just go back to intercepting peoples' messages quietly, shall we?

  2. Re:What's worse? by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's worse is your wilful misconstrual of an important privacy rights issue either out of malice or ignorance.

  3. Americans don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For all Snowden's sacrifices he is barely making a dent in the collective ignorance of Americans. At least other countries are being shown/reminded of just how dangerous the NSA is to them.

    1. Re:Americans don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they'll never care unless you start taking some physical away from from them. Then they'll piss and moan.

    2. Re:Americans don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the German government, it seems. This is such a huge farce, I don't even find words to describe it appropriately.

    3. Re:Americans don't care by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Look. On the one hand, it will be virtually impossible to make the technology disappear that allows any government unprecedented surveillance powers.

      Based on the historical evidence of the governments of men, it would also be rather reasonable to expect there will exist elements within our governments willing to exploit national security fears to abuse surveillance powers.

      With awareness, ignorance is left off the table as a selection. At least if we are made aware, we then choose to make a difference or play along.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Americans don't care by wealthychef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point is not to make a dent in the collective ignorance of Americans. That's asking a lot. What is the point is to uncover the man behind the green curtain, who promises us he is keeping us safe with his awesome powers, but is instead bumbling around, lying, and providing a fertile ground for abuse by collecting too much information and having an opaque process. Evil loves the darkness, even when the "good guys" are the ones that turn the light out in the name of national security.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    5. Re:Americans don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reign em in or quit your whining . They are your responsibility.

    6. Re:Americans don't care by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      make the technology disappear

      It's not a matter of making the technology disappear.

      It's about using appropriate technologies to keep sensitive data private.

      I would hope that every foreign business in the world is now researching encrypted email, VPNs, etc for their corporate communication just to protect their industrial secrets and corporate IP.

      And I would hope that US companies now assume that China and Russia are doing similar spying to the NSA -- and therefore are also researching encrypted email, VPNs, etc.

      Once such companies do that (and they will - because money), the appropriate technogies will become widespread enough that reasonably encrypted email will trickle down to consumer tools like gmail/hotmal/etc.

      And that's what'll re-enstate privacy for the common person.

    7. Re:Americans don't care by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Every lock you build has a key. A security cold war is inevitable.

    8. Re:Americans don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good job you've got those guns, otherwise you lot would be being repressed.......

    9. Re:Americans don't care by davydagger · · Score: 1

      its probably the biggest dent thats been made post reagan.

      You don't see it on the TV, but people are slowly starting to question everything.

      The only people immune from this, are people who have *a lot* to loose if the government comes crashing down.

    10. Re:Americans don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even when the "good guys" are the ones that turn the light out

      "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

    11. Re:Americans don't care by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      You really think that this kind of shit doesn't go on in other countries? The biggest difference between them and the NSA is that they either a) openly admit to spying on their own citizens(China) or b) Are much better at covering their ass.

    12. Re:Americans don't care by symbolset · · Score: 1

      So wait. You're saying China's most secure spy bureau does not subcontract their sysadmin duties to Dell, to be filled by an unvetted and frankly suspicious temporary worker? Not Iran, nor Syria either?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    13. Re:Americans don't care by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      it will be virtually impossible to make the technology disappear that allows any government unprecedented surveillance powers.

      Disagree. We can do a lot to make mass surveillance of the internet impractical. Real life is a bit harder, but private communication and thought is a worthwhile goal in itself.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Americans don't care by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Snowden is making a dent in American's wallets though, or at least in corporate profits. Financial pain is the only language the US understands, and the only thing that will make it stop.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Americans don't care by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Look. On the one hand, it will be virtually impossible to make the technology disappear that allows any government unprecedented surveillance powers.

      Based on the historical evidence of the governments of men, it would also be rather reasonable to expect there will exist elements within our governments willing to exploit national security fears to abuse surveillance powers.

      With awareness, ignorance is left off the table as a selection. At least if we are made aware, we then choose to make a difference or play along.

      Actually, with widespread incorporation of encryption, NSA will not ever have the resources to try and decrypt what they now fetch in the clear. And lets hope that it is incorporated soon, to keep Google and other search engines out of your life.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    16. Re:Americans don't care by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Actually, with widespread incorporation of encryption, NSA will not ever have the resources to try and decrypt what they now fetch in the clear. And lets hope that it is incorporated soon, to keep Google and other search engines out of your life.

      You are posting cognitively on Slashdot.

      Most people are not like you. Read it again... it does not say don't like you.

      Widespread incorporation of encryption will statistically miss at the average consumer, the weakest link.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  4. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...either out of malice or ignorance."

    Or maybe 'johnsie' is being paid to stir up the pot a little?

  5. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And exactly how many peoples messages have you read so far?
    Everybody new NSA is intercepting messages but ignored it for the lack of proof.
    Now that the proof is out in the open we all of a sudden rationalizing that it was a bad thing and the way it was before Snowden was somehow better.

  6. What haven't they lied about? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As recently as May, shortly after he retired as NSA director, Gen. Keith Alexander denied that Snowden could have passed FISA content to journalists.

    âoeHe didnâ(TM)t get this data,â Alexander told a New Yorker reporter. âoeThey didnâ(TM)t touch â"â

    âoeThe operational data?â the reporter asked.

    âoeThey didnâ(TM)t touch the FISA data,â Alexander replied. He added, âoeThat database, he didnâ(TM)t have access to.â

    Robert S. Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said in a prepared statement that Alexander and other officials were speaking only about âoerawâ intelligence, the term for intercepted content that has not yet been evaluated, stamped with classification markings or minimized to mask U.S. identities.

    Every step of the way, the NSA has been forced to go back and qualify its previous statements.
    And not just statements to the American people, but to Congress as well.

    One analyst rests her claim that a target is foreign on the fact that his e-mails are written in a foreign language, a quality shared by tens of millions of Americans. Others are allowed to presume that anyone on the chat âoebuddy listâ of a known foreign national is also foreign.

    In many other cases, analysts seek and obtain approval to treat an account as âoeforeignâ if someone connects to it from a computer address that seems to be overseas. âoeThe best foreignness explanations have the selector being accessed via a foreign IP address,â an NSA supervisor instructs an allied analyst in Australia.

    And these are the carefully vetted selectors that are being used to not-spy on Americans.
    It might be faster for the NSA to just make a list of the things they haven't publicly lied about.
    What a farce.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only farce here is the American people standing for it. That includes those at the highest levels.

    2. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a farce.

      The real farce is that Americans will keep voting for the same two political parties, no matter what they do.

    3. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Well, they're using the excuse that they are forced to lie because the programs are top secret, congress isn't authorized to see the data so congress should stop asking questions so they don't have to lie to them.

    4. Re:What haven't they lied about? by weilawei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have two? I only see one from here...

    5. Re:What haven't they lied about? by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There statements will change only slightely. It will go from "No!" to "So?".
      The real issue is not so much that they are spying or even lying about it. The issue is that nothing is done to stop it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:What haven't they lied about? by augahyde · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have two? I only see one from here...

      In name we have two. In reality we have factions of one.

    7. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tldr; I can't even read what it says. If you are posting to a site that doesn't handle Unicode characters, don't copy and paste Unicode. It's not difficult.

    8. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every step of the way, the NSA has been forced to go back and qualify its previous statements.

      Since when is adding "-- not." called "qualifying a statement"?

      Is there some sort of Newspeak Dictionary where one can look up when and why various phrases changed their meaning to the opposite?

      It might help keeping up with all those honorable men.

    9. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anything that is too secret to be told to the representatives of the public is not compatible with a republic.

      So they just have to stop it. Yes, it will make some things harder, but "it was easier that way" is not an excuse to break the law. Particularly not for the government.

    10. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any ideas on how I can show Snowden my gratitude by ensuring his return to America will exclude his being punished by the authorities for having revealed their failings to us?

    11. Re:What haven't they lied about? by linearz69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every step of the way, the NSA has been forced to go back and qualify its previous statements.
      And not just statements to the American people, but to Congress as well.

      This is kind of like the scorpion and the frog.

      Perhaps the concern here shouldn't be the NSA as much as the people who make the laws that enable the NSA to be the way they are. The NSA is a large secret agency that has been created by decades of congressional legislation. Due to "security concerns" the NSA operates relatively autonomously, and, by design, even the president and courts have limited oversight. The limitation of this oversight of the Judicial and Executive branches should be challenged but really hasn't. Why?

      And people rail against the NSA, but they really need to look at congress who has allowed the agency, through legislation, to completely avoid the Judicial branch of our government, and not be accountable to the executive branch which it is supposedly running under.

      One of the things I've notices is a general public complacency on this NSA issue. I'm curious as to why more people don't think the NSA spying is a problem. I was having a conversation with a friend the other day, and he seem real concerned about CIA drone strikes in Yemen. When I said I was more concerned about the NSA in Mountain View, he looked at me like I needed a tinfoil hat.

    12. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What a farce.

      The real farce is that Americans will keep voting for the same two political parties, no matter what they do.

      I think that is what annoys me the most. Where is the public outcry? Nobody seems to care that our once famous Democracy has become something twisted and evil. All top level NSA managers should be imprisoned a year for every illegally intercepted message. But that will never happen, no one can do anything to reign in an out of control criminal agency; Congress won't do anything because they created the problem and fear all the blackmail evidence the NSA is holding on them, the president won't do anything because he is too busy trying to EXPAND their powers, the DOJ will not do anything because they are even MORE corrupt, the people will not do anything because NO ONE CARES!

    13. Re:What haven't they lied about? by ron_ivi · · Score: 2

      Gen. Keith Alexander denied that Snowden could have passed FISA content to journalists

      Does that mean that Alexander's kinda a witness to Snowden's innocence in this leak?

      If it goes to trial, a NSA director saying it couldn't have been Snowden who leaked this stuff is probably a pretty good alibi.

    14. Re:What haven't they lied about? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      The intelligence oversight act of 1974 gave small groups in congress the ability to oversee intelligence activities that breach rights -- the basis being that warranting evidence would then lead to permissions of privacy violations, etc. I don't understand why this isn't still important. It was important in August 2001. It was important on September 10th 2001.

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

    15. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The intelligence oversight act of 1974 gave small groups in congress the ability to oversee intelligence activities that breach rights -- the basis being that warranting evidence would then lead to permissions of privacy violations, etc. I don't understand why this isn't still important. It was important in August 2001. It was important on September 10th 2001.

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

      Watch the Frontline special on the NSA:
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

    16. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Show your appreciation for his sacrifice by making it mean something.

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty. Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use, starting now, in that order.

    17. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what country do you live in?

    18. Re:What haven't they lied about? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      Due to "security concerns" the NSA operates relatively autonomously, and, by design, even the president and courts have limited oversight.

      This isn't true at all
      The President has ultimate authority over the actions of the intelligence agencies.
      The Congress has ultimate control of funding for the intelligence agencies.
      Further, both houses of Congress have intelligence oversight committees that were formed in the wake of multiple scandals from the 1960s and 1970s.

      None of this is new. FISA was written as a direct result of the US Army spying on domestic protests by American citizens.
      The domestic and overbroad spying by the NSA is exactly the type of thing that FISA was originally intended to halt.

      Every time we pass a law to stop some shitty corporate or military behavior, it gets slowly watered down over the years until it's incapable of meeting its original goals.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    19. Re:What haven't they lied about? by davydagger · · Score: 2

      I think that has more to do with how the voting system is set up, and less to do with collective ignorance.

      Collective ignorance of the US population is yet more propaganda they tell us to accept their abuse of our neighbors.

      We don't have a choice at the voting booth, because of systematic elimination, and exclusion of canidates that oppose the system, and systematic corruption of any that might get through.

      the USA was never a democracy, and what little bits of democracy that exist in the system only date to the early 20th century (i.e. 17th amendment).

      Our constitution, declaration of independence, early government, where *not* written by men of the people, crowd sourced, or in any way shape or form made by either democratic, nor popular movements. They were written by the pre-existing state governments as existed under the crown.

      Not since the civil war, has anyone, anywhere, really, had any voice in opposing the system of government, and the federalists have cemented any opposition to federalism as support for the confederacy.

    20. Re:What haven't they lied about? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      there is plenty of public outcry. You here it everywhere. In every bar, in every street corner, where there are *people*. From conservatives, to liberals, to anarchists, capitalists and socialists alike.

      You won't here it on the TV, the radio, but you'll here lots of it in the printed press.

      This is going to make glenn greenwald's career.

    21. Re:What haven't they lied about? by linearz69 · · Score: 1

      This isn't true at all
      The President has ultimate authority over the actions of the intelligence agencies. .

      To the degree that the President knows what is going on. The problem, in a practical sense, the NSA doesn't have to listen to or inform the President of it's actions. Career civil servants acting outside of the wishes of an elected administration is nothing new... look at the FBI under Hoover or the CIA under Bush. There is an inherent advantage the civil servants have here, not in just being able to classify everything in sight, but also longevity and experience.

      Not to say that the President isn't complicit here, he absolutely is. The President could get into the shorts of the NSA, which would essentially shut the agency down. But that would have political backlash that no President has been willing to accept. The NSA has too much legal leverage here.

      The Congress has ultimate control of funding for the intelligence agencies.
      Further, both houses of Congress have intelligence oversight committees that were formed in the wake of multiple scandals from the 1960s and 1970s. .

      Yes, this is my point. Congress is the body that has the most ability to provide oversight. They have the actual carrot and stick - funding. But the degree to which it does provide oversight minimal. Instead, they have passed laws that have made the NSA harder to oversee, and have squelched all public debate as "classified". Congress is either dropping the ball here or screwing us royally, depending on how one looks at it.

      None of this is new. FISA was written as a direct result of the US Army spying on domestic protests by American citizens.
      The domestic and overbroad spying by the NSA is exactly the type of thing that FISA was originally intended to halt.

      Every time we pass a law to stop some shitty corporate or military behavior, it gets slowly watered down over the years until it's incapable of meeting its original goals.

      .

      Right. I don't think the public even understands this shit. FISA wasn't exactly on the level when it was written back in 1979. There is no appeal to the Supreme Court, which, for what is essentially a criminal court, appears outside the constitution. The FISA court may have have a practical purpose from 1979 to 1999 where it averaged about 600 requests for electronic surveillance per year. Then in 2000, there were 13,000+ request, like the unconstitutional big brother in the weeds.

      The FISA legislation is the typical nonsense we can expect from congress. A half assed solution to a problem that, 20 years later, enough people had forgotten its purpose to be exploited.

    22. Re:What haven't they lied about? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      All of these words need entries:

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

      You're not under arrest. You're being detained. Russia or the US?

      Target. (You're not being targeted, you're just being incidentally collected.)

      War. (When did Congress declare the last one?)

    23. Re:What haven't they lied about? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Probably nothing can be done to stop it in the short to medium term. I suspect that many years from now historians will look back and see this as just a phase humanity had to go through, kind of like the evolution from monarchy to democracy.

      It's clear that the power to know everything about everyone has gone to the heads of the political class so badly that they'll never give it up. They'll always find a justification and any "reasonable compromise" that is arrived at won't be what we had 40-50 years ago (i.e. no total surveillance) even though that seemed to work OK, it'll be "slightly less than totalitarian surveillance, sorta, unless there's a good reason for it".

      So for now we're stuck with it. The geek in me wants to believe that what starts with Snowden is an epic and very long struggle to design technology to make it surveillance-proof, which will inevitably result in some kind of (hopefully mostly non-violent) quasi civil war a la the monarchists vs parliamentarians. Governments will fight back hard and eventually the fact that technology needs to be government-proof will become as widely accepted a principle as the free press being government-proof. But it will take a loooooong time. Probably longer than any of us will be alive.

      The cynic in me says we're all boned and 1984 has arrived.

    24. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very this, although the first two boxes have been used up. You're using the third right now. I strongly doubt the fourth will be used, even should the third fail.

    25. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, this is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. I'm using the first box, the soap box. Not the jury box (#3).

    26. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real farce here is the way 90% of the protest focuses on the citizenship of the suspects. This is, legally and constitutionally, irrelevant. A Pakistani citizen who's legally resident in, say, Texas has exactly the same rights as an American citizen who's resident there. If the same two people moved to Lahore, the same would still be true.

      "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". What is so hard to understand about that?

    27. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. The Money Party.

    28. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU, quit trying to play "illiterate" you fucking spinmaster wannabe member of the NSA!

    29. Re:What haven't they lied about? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      thats a good one

    30. Re:What haven't they lied about? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      âoeHe didnâ(TM)t get this data,â Alexander told a New Yorker reporter. âoeThey didnâ(TM)t touch â"â

      What a piece of alphabet salad... Americans, you have guns. Please shoot the webmaster where this was copy-pasted from!

    31. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it goes to trial, a NSA director saying it couldn't have been Snowden who leaked this stuff is probably a pretty good alibi.

      Rubbish. All that is proven by any NSA official saying anything is that he is opening and closing his mouth. It does not even imply that it is actually his mouth he is talking from.

      Why would a court consider the testimony of serial liars, perjurers, and word weasels?

    32. Re:What haven't they lied about? by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      Due to "security concerns" the NSA operates relatively autonomously, and, by design, even the president and courts have limited oversight.

      This isn't true at all The President has ultimate authority over the actions of the intelligence agencies. The Congress has ultimate control of funding for the intelligence agencies. Further, both houses of Congress have intelligence oversight committees that were formed in the wake of multiple scandals from the 1960s and 1970s.

      None of this is new. FISA was written as a direct result of the US Army spying on domestic protests by American citizens. The domestic and overbroad spying by the NSA is exactly the type of thing that FISA was originally intended to halt.

      Every time we pass a law to stop some shitty corporate or military behavior, it gets slowly watered down over the years until it's incapable of meeting its original goals.

      While all technically true, the problem happens when these agencies straight up lie to Congress or the president about their activities.

      James Clapper, the Bay of Pigs, etc etc. If you believe those oversight committees are worth anything, well...

    33. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Monsanto party

    34. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two kinds of government investigations: those that are supposed to find what is obvious and those that are supposed to look good while looking but not find what is obvious.

      As an example, the congressional investigation into the intentional and political over-torque of the intelligence data used to justify Bush II's war of agression never bothered to interview people from the Office of Special Plans (aka the Lie Shop), one of whom (Karen Kwiatowsky) was blogging publically about the lying and coercion and intimidation of intelligence professionals as it was happening.

      "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that gambling has been going on here!"

    35. Re:What haven't they lied about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preview before posting, dipshit.

  7. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You deserve what's coming to you.

  8. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, most IP metadata, if not most traffic, is sent in clear-text?

  9. Re:What's worse? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's worse, intercepting peoples messages or making them public for anyone to read?

    Since the latter is a violation of my constitutional rights and the former is not, I'm going to say intercepting peoples messages. Any more inane questions or can we move onto the topic of why our federal government has torn up the constitution and is currently using it to wipe their ass?

  10. The Spin by weilawei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The amount of spin applied to the article is incredible. It reads like a propaganda piece designed to have snippets quoted out of context. Good soundbites.

    In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are

    Which appears to imply that we only target foreigners... Since Americans are "untargeted" they don't deserve a mention.

    At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

    And then they never balance out that "At one level" until three paragraphs later.

    Then, they spend most of the article on a fucking fluff piece about the content of some romantic messages. What the fuck is this shit?

    PR spin piece, through and through. They managed to ruin an actual news story.

    1. Re:The Spin by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Post > Bezos > CIA

      Don't expect them to say nice things about the NSA. Sounds like a regular turf war to me.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:The Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a twit, they explain why they spent time on the romance.

      "What she does not understand, she said, is why after all this time, with the case long closed and her own job with the Australian government secure, the NSA does not discard what it no longer needs.'

    3. Re:The Spin by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's smart. Lots and lots of people don't respond to stories that are technical and abstract. OK so they spy on people using "tor" with "selectors" yawn change channel *zap*.

      Human interest stories are different. This story might reach a whole audience who just couldn't find it in themselves to care until now. But ooooh juicy details about someone's romance with a jihadist, interesting, and huh .... wait. They could get that stuff on anyone, couldn't they. They could get that on me.

      So this story could prompt the housewives of America to care more than perhaps they have so far.

    4. Re:The Spin by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      You are a terrible reader. I cannot imagine a PR piece that could be more harmful to the cause.

      It sounds like you allowed some preconceived notion to spin the words for you, because I didn't find your references until the second read through. The first was after reading this post so I was looking for spin to confirm it.

      The article was not well written in parts, but it includes some quotes that, taken out of context, more than balance out your spin assertion. The very first sentence in the article explicitly states that Americans were not legally intercepted. The question of who was targeted is a separate issue, depending on the definition of foreign, which is also addressed later.

      Your assignment. Make one list of all of the positive spin, and another of spin free clearly negative information. Especially when it is the same concept worded differently. Post this list to back up your claim.

    5. Re:The Spin by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I didn't find your references until the second read through.

      You mean to say you didn't read the headline--which was the first reference of only two. That's some real close reading there.

    6. Re:The Spin by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Correct. Headlines are the worst offenders at information dispersion, and I ignore them unless I'm certain I missed something.

      My argument stands. Your assignment is not complete.

    7. Re:The Spin by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Your assignment is a load of BS. A PR spin piece can say lots of things, but the headline and the top of the fold is where most readers stop. Anything more than a quick skim is unlikely--and you are prime evidence of that. You didn't even get TFH. Even worse, you didn't read the first sentence.

      The very first sentence in the article explicitly states that Americans were not legally intercepted.

      Now, that word... explicit. I don't think it means what you think it means. Did you mean IMPLICIT?

      Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post.

      It says that ordinary internet users (Americans and others) outnumber legally targeted foreigners. At no point does that sentence explicitly state that Americans were targeted illegally. It merely says that ordinary users outnumber "legally targeted foreigners". It DOES NOT state that collection was considered to be illegal for Americans. You can infer that all target collection on foreigners that was not legal was illegal, but it doesn't state whether or not Americans having their data collected was illegal.

      What you're doing is making an inference from something implied by that statement.

      Now shut the fuck up and go away already until you learn to read. FFS...

    8. Re:The Spin by weilawei · · Score: 1

      For bonus points, try searching that page for the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful'. You will not find it. Words containing 'legal' appear only twice. The use of 'lawful' occurs once, in 'lawfully', where they claim:

      Most of the people caught up in those programs are not the targets and would not lawfully qualify as such.

      So, they don't lawfully qualify as being targeted. So it's not actually targeting is what they're arguing. (Also, a load of BS.)

    9. Re:The Spin by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting about the Post, Bezos, the CIA, and the NSA ("CARRIER LOST..." Now that that's out of our system, let's continue.) in relation to each other and over what turf, but they're saying "not nice" things about the NSA in 24kt gold words.

      At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

      With their track record? Care? Scrupulous care? Insert incredulity here.

    10. Re:The Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If trolls like you would only realise that it's the collecting and keeping of the data that is the illegal unconstitutional bit we are talking about. Targeting is irrelevant, but you keep blowing smoke, maybe some Americans will be fooled.

    11. Re:The Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this story could prompt the housewives of America to care more than perhaps they have so far.

      Unfortunately I think the housewives of America are more likely to want more juicy outings of their peers and/or the famous than a stop to the program.

  11. You have to feel sorry for Edward.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy now faces a gradual slide into obscurity as the initial outrage over his revelations congeals into apathy and and acceptance by the vast majority... in the best case scenario for him personally, he will spend the rest of his life in departure lounge purgatory like this guy. There are plenty of worse possibilities. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes a bit loopy and we begin to get stories of him doing strange things like other well known whistleblowers who ended up in similar circumstances, when that happens we should remember that every human has a breaking point and it doesn't devalue their accomplishments. Was it worth it? Will he be vindicated in future history? Only time will tell, but what's fairly certain is he won't be alive to see it. I'm not implying there will be assassinations or whatever but that the world's slide into a darker period of history is still accelerating and it will be decades, at least, before the pendulum naturally begins to swing the other way.

    1. Re:You have to feel sorry for Edward.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting comment. Maybe you are correct.

    2. Re:You have to feel sorry for Edward.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right on. But it's like that old quote "whether you win or lose, live or die, the difference is just an eyelash". Sure the momentum of the world wasn't shifted by his sacrifice, but I think he did as much or more than any one man can be expected to.

      What if there were 100 Snowdens? What if it became common knowledge that unethical orders would NOT be obeyed. It would be a whole new world. I think Snowden is just the beginning of what could be.

    3. Re:You have to feel sorry for Edward.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humanity might settle down and get its shit together and get off this rock? </pipedream>

    4. Re:You have to feel sorry for Edward.. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      I think you massively overestimate how bad Russia is, especially compared to the USA.

      Snowden is 30 and newly single. Russia is a large country that is notorious for its abundance of highly educated and attractive women. It has quite a few famous and sophisticated software companies, especially in the security realm that Snowden likes. 143 million people manage to live there without going crazy.

      Of all the places in the world to have landed, Russia is definitely not the worst. Heck it's probably the best place he could have landed. I guess he was trying to get to Ecuador but they don't have the stones Putin does, nor is it a large country, nor does it have any noted IT firms.

  12. 10%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And how many of those targets should be targets to begin with? With how easy it is for the government to label someone a 'terrorist' or an 'extremist', their targets are probably mostly harmless people, anyway.

  13. What the hell? by engun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tone of this post is insane. It makes it sound like Americans are the only people on this planet with a right to privacy. What about the rest of the world? So the NSA's only crime is that it spied on US citizens? Is it perfectly ok to undermine those same rights for other human beings?

    1. Re:What the hell? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are at least three separate arguments here. One is whether it's wrong to spy on anyone. The next is whether it's wrong to spy on your own citizens. The third is whether you ever have an excuse to violate the highest law of the land (the constitution, of course) in order to uphold lesser laws.

      It's not hypocritical to believe that the answers are no, yes, and no, respectively. It's douchey, but not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be ignoring the fact that every nation with the funding has an espionage program.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:What the hell? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 2

      No, it isn't okay, but that won't stop people from 'justifying' it by saying "Everyone else is doing it, so it's okay!" or "It keeps us safe, so it's okay!" or "It's technically not illegal, so it's okay!"

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The difference with other countries is size, the US one is far bigger.

    4. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypocritical would be ignoring the fact that every nation with the funding has an espionage program.

      It would only be hypocritical if the person personally believed that that was okay. Not everyone agrees with what their government does, so just because a country has an espionage program (that spies on innocents) does not make the people opposing such things hypocritical.

    5. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens of a country have a right not to be spied on by THEIR OWN country, except in accordance with due process of law. Between countries, there is no such right, nor should there be, as it would an infringement the "human right" of self-government.
      If Austria wants to spy on Belgian citizens, it can. If Belgians don't like it, they are free to disband their government and request to be annexed by Austria. Etc.

    6. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can put whatever limits on our governments that we want. If we don't want them to spy on innocent foreigners, then they don't get to. It's that simple.

    7. Re:What the hell? by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Every single country in the world treats its own citizens differently from how it treats foreign nations' citizens. Governments as we know them could not even function if this were not the case.

    8. Re:What the hell? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      Every single country in the world treats its own citizens differently from how it treats foreign nations' citizens.

      Yes, but it does not follow that we must spy on innocent foreigners. All we have to do to not do that is... stop it. That's all.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypocritical would be ignoring the constant repetition of the belief that the United States is about freedom from tyranny, when it is tending toward a police state - with the secret police already in place.

    10. Re:What the hell? by lippydude · · Score: 1

      @engun: "The tone of this post is insane. It makes it sound like Americans are the only people on this planet with a right to privacy. What about the rest of the world? So the NSA's only crime is that it spied on US citizens? Is it perfectly ok to undermine those same rights for other human beings?"

      Well yea, if your not American you have no right to privacy ..

    11. Re:What the hell? by dumbo11 · · Score: 1

      There is a fourth question - whether the US government is helping to create police states in other countries.

      If you live in a 'unstable' country friendly to the US, then your every communication may be monitored, not by your local dictator, but by the NSA on their behalf. Personally, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is absolutely no legal responsibility for it - it's effectively an "outsourced police state".

  14. Re:Does Snowden know anything ? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you know anything? More specifically, do you know anything about the constitution, or freedom? If your idiotic mass surveillance scheme isn't being conducted with constitutional warrants and can't help but sap up a information on innocent people (millions in this case), then it's unconstitutional and evil. What is so hard to understand about that?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  15. Re:What's worse? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 3, Informative

    Which one is the former and which the latter? Because intercepting messages sounds like it is mighty unconstitutional.

  16. Re:What's worse? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're right, I got them mixed up. :-p
    You get my point though.

  17. According to the NSA, you are not a US citizen if by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If any of the following apply:

    1. You write emails in a foreign language

    2. You chat with known foreigners.

    3. You use an offshore proxy (perhaps to watch sprts events not available on US TV).

    4. Your broswer has stored tracking cookies from Yahoo, which advertisers consider unreliable.

    These are the reported cases. Prbably there are more. Remember that the NSA claimed that it did not track people if the balance of probabilities showed them to be US citizens, but this shows that, once again, the NSA was lying.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  18. How big is the problem really? by godrik · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How many people are really being unlawfully spied upon? I am not saying that even 1 would be acceptable. But do we have any numbers on that? Because it seems that there was 10,000 unlawful account being spied upon. This is a very small "collateral damage" on the size of the population. There are 313,000,000 people in the US. We are talking about 0.003% which seems "somewhat reasonnable"

    Maybe the article was talking about only a single program. But how vast this "mass surveillance" really is?

    1. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please read the fine article.

      It proposes that based on a 1 in 10 "success" rate, the dragnet is wrongly flagging close to 1 million US citizens.

      That's straight from the article.

      My understanding, though the article doesn't specifically say so (my reading comprehension could be wrong), is that the NSA program captures everything else and that everyone else is correctly flagged as a US citizen and their data is left alone.

    2. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge problem.
      Dragnets are illegal. Just like DUI checkpoints. And NAZI checkpoints.
      You must have individualized suspicion. Not a fucking fishing expedition.
      Get a clue people.

    3. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I'm aware, they're sucking up just about everybody's information (or "metadata" as they like to call it).

    4. Re:How big is the problem really? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      We are talking about 0.003% which seems "somewhat reasonnable"

      That's not even close to reasonable. It's an egregious violation of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:How big is the problem really? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Nazi checkpoints? Yes that sounds illegal - stopping people and checking if their political* ideas fit a certain profile isn't allowed in any democratic state.
      DUI checkpoints are absolutely allowed and arguably saves a significant number of lives each year.

      (* one could argue that National socialists isn't really a political view but that isn't really relevant here.)

    6. Re:How big is the problem really? by anagama · · Score: 1

      States with greater privacy protections written into their constitutions outlaw DUI checkpoints. Those more closely aligned with the Feds' "guilty until proven innocent" mentality, use DUI checkpoints.

      By accepting the propriety of a search without any articulable suspicion that you may be engaged in illegal activity, DUI checkpoint states, and the people who support such laws, are steepening the slope we're on as we glide toward police state.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
      Once loaded, do a text search for "ten states" to get the list of those on a higher moral level with regard to this issue.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:How big is the problem really? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 2

      DUI checkpoints are absolutely allowed and arguably saves a significant number of lives each year.

      Fucking bullshit. In the 'land of the free,' freedom is preferred over safety. Randomly stopping people to check if they're breaking the law is definitely a constitutional violation, and it goes over the line.

      Oh, some judges may have approved it, but that doesn't make it right or constitutional.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:How big is the problem really? by Lakitu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's the relevant paragraph from the article:

      If Snowden’s sample is representative, the population under scrutiny in the PRISM and Upstream programs is far larger than the government has suggested. In a June 26 “transparency report,” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed that 89,138 people were targets of last year’s collection under FISA Section 702. At the 9-to-1 ratio of incidental collection in Snowden’s sample, the office’s figure would correspond to nearly 900,000 accounts, targeted or not, under surveillance.

      They use this information from Snowden, the 160,000 intercepted messages, showing that nearly 10 people were targetted "incidentally" for every 1 legitimate target. With that 10 to 1 ratio, and a transparency report released in june showing that there were almost 90,000 legitimate targets, the math comes out to approximately 1 million Americans "incidentally" targetted.

      Of course it's a crock to say these people's communications were spied upon "incidentally". They were explicitly targetted for incidental reasons such as being in the same IRC channel, using a foreign IP address, etc.

      What I don't get, though, is that the list of "minimized" targets whose identities were scrubbed as being likely Americans includes "a sitting President". Does this mean they spied on President Obama's communications, and then scrubbed his identity from it? Were these legitimate targets sending threatening emails to thanksobama@whitehouse.gov or what? Did they scrub any reference to his name, even when it didn't involve communications originating from him?

      How did he wind up as any of these "incidental" targets?

    9. Re:How big is the problem really? by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      They're sucking up all kinds of communications metadata, but it's separate and unrelated to the programs discussed in the article.

    10. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving is a privilege. Therefore, you must give up your constitutional liberties when you exercise that privilege, even though the government has no power to force you to do so.

      You don't technically have to fly on an airplane. Therefore, it's okay for the government to ignore the fourth amendment and violate everyone's fundamental liberties.

      Even with free speech zones, you're still allowed to speak. Therefore, it's not a violation of the first amendment.

      Look at all these lovely authoritarian arguments... And it's always funny to see some moron support some of them, but not others.

    11. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just more of the same thanks to the new outrage over -isms. As long as it inconveniences white men just as much as blacks or women, it's allowed. Never mind that the government shouldn't be inconveniencing any innocent person.

    12. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people are really being unlawfully spied upon? I am not saying that even 1 would be acceptable. But do we have any numbers on that? Because it seems that there was 10,000 unlawful account being spied upon. This is a very small "collateral damage" on the size of the population. There are 313,000,000 people in the US. We are talking about 0.003% which seems "somewhat reasonnable"

      Maybe the article was talking about only a single program. But how vast this "mass surveillance" really is?

      If you personally got put on the hook for having 16,000 illegally downloaded MP3s by that same government's laws, I'm sure nobody would change their mind when you said that's only 0.0x percent of all commercially produced music. After all, if that were bigger crimes (like murder) you'd still be liable for sixteen thousand counts of it. I'd sure like to see someone on the hook for sixteen thousand counts of constitutional violations, and sent to jail along with the staff that helped make it possible throughout the past decade.

    13. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a very small "collateral damage" on the size of the population.

      Except that's not even how "collateral damage" figures are calculated. They're calculated on the intended targets, hence the headlines "only 10% from official targets". By your logic, WW2 wasn't so bad because "Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population."

      We are talking about 0.003% which seems "somewhat reasonnable"

      If the US government was killing US citizens at a rate of 10,000 people/year, would you see that as "somewhat reasonable"? What if it were merely stripping 100% of the property of 10,000 people/year? All in the name of terrorism (or drug laws)? All "somewhat reasonable"? Because you can spin it as 0.003% of the population?

      Maybe the article was talking about only a single program. But how vast this "mass surveillance" really is?

      Considering the scope of how many terrorist plots have actually been foiled or how many people are believed to be part of al Qaeda or all other terrorist groups combined, spying on 10,000 people for the WHOLE WORLD is comparatively mass surveillance. It's entirely out of scope to the problem and it's obviously not getting results. And that's the other part of your problem. Spying isn't meant to be an end result but a means to an end. That for 10,000 people/year, we're not even rounding up 1,000 people/year for terrorism. Since 9/11, we've at best had claims in the 50 people range--although the evidence is close to 0 terrorist plots being stopped by said spying.

      Come back when you start speaking about collateral damage in terms of in comparison to actual terrorism we've stopped. Because if all we're doing is watching them for decades and letting them go about their business, we might as well not be spying at all. And then when you speak of the collateral damage, it's 10,000 people / 0 terrorist plots foiled, and we get to the point of having a non-sensical answer at best and near infinite collateral damage at worse.

    14. Re:How big is the problem really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a "sitting president" in the meaning "sitting duck". He can't get away from FBI and NSA as they have a valid excuse to cater for his "security". This includes collecting any extortionable material on him.

    15. Re:How big is the problem really? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      We can make an argument the framers would not have found it reasonable as well. Just look at how our courts function.

      We have a formerly strong but at least still strongly worded 4th amendment that at the time it was written would have greatly inhibited spying. "The right to be secure in ones papers and effects" in the late 18th century left the state with following you around in public and asking people what you were up to without much ability to compel them answer.

      The we have the innocent until proven guilty concept, and the beyond reasonably doubt standard; which again show the intent of our societies founding document was very much to ensure the rights of the innocent were protected even at the expense of letting the guilty escape punishment and public safety allowing offenders to go free if we were not reasonably certain they were really offenders.

      So all the necessary for security arguments are fundamentally invalid because the very purpose of the organization "The United States of America" is to "Secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves..." Actions that infringement on liberty is incompatible with our national objectives. The "General welfare" argument does not hold either, look at the phrasing government is to "Promote" the general welfare but "Secure" liberty; the framers absolutely intended liberty to trump welfare where required.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re:How big is the problem really? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      If Snowdenâ(TM)s sample is representative, the population under scrutiny in the PRISM and Upstream programs is far larger than the government has suggested. In a June 26 âoetransparency report,â the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed that 89,138 people were targets of last yearâ(TM)s collection under FISA Section 702. At the 9-to-1 ratio of incidental collection in Snowdenâ(TM)s sample, the officeâ(TM)s figure would correspond to nearly 900,000 accounts, targeted or not, under surveillance.

      900k, not 10k.

  19. Untargeted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If someone intercepts your communications, records them to persistent storage, and keeps them indefinitely for later inspection, YOU ARE BEING TARGETED. Your papers and effects are being seized without any judicial oversight, contrary to the 4th amendment of the US constitution. What the hell is wrong with you?

    1. Re:Untargeted? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      You're agreeing with me. Note how I put "untargeted" in quotes...

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

      well here,
      let's think about this a little bit more clearly.
      i didn't pull you over - i redirected your daily route to work
      and along that path i installed license plate readers
      we weren't really updating that bridge :)
      we were updating our records
      ofc, when they do this with cellular data you're not the target.
      the traffic on your isp is.
      you are not the target until we find something interesting in our logs from your isp
      THEN you become the target
      america's, american's....
      i suppose it's all semantics but really
      we don't target yemeni's with missles and drones until after they've been identified.

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

      Yep, sorry, hit reply on the wrong part of the thread.

  20. Stop parroting NSA-speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you seize someone's private papers and/or effects, commit them to persistent storage, and keep them around forever just in case you need them... you ARE TARGETING THEM. Anyone with their communications in NSA possession has been a target of NSA surveillance. If they weren't targets, the NSA wouldn't have kept the data.

    1. Re:Stop parroting NSA-speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know, i'm starting to think this is more akin to videotape and audio.
      or at least that they believe it is.
      recording A person without their knowledge is illegal.
      but what if that is at a public forum?
      is the internet a public or private space?

      is this more akin to a public or private venue.

    2. Re:Stop parroting NSA-speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA is tapping private inter-datacenter transfers of Google and Amazon, exploiting flaws in SSL to recover plaintext data, and capturing data from private two-person IM and Skype conversations. I'm going to go ahead and call those private.

    3. Re:Stop parroting NSA-speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know, i'm starting to think this is more akin to videotape and audio.
      or at least that they believe it is.
      recording A person without their knowledge is illegal.
      but what if that is at a public forum?
      is the internet a public or private space?

      is this more akin to a public or private venue.

      Know one thing: it is NOT "public." Proof? If it were "public" then I could pull up your public real name and say a chilling hello to YOU any time of the day, just because you made a post with your public IP on an end-user WHOIS system which would have info down to the last-mile*

      For internet addresses (your point) this is not the case now, and ISPs make PRIVATEly-known dhcp assignments to you and I. Yet, this data is always trivial for the likes of the NSA to request of them if they were so inclined. Just like they lawyers can make your phone company reveal your PRIVATE phone logs in a divorce case.

      * This is already possible with current phonebooks: all non-commercial end-user landline numbers are public, except for those we pay for to be made "private" numbers. I wonder if it will ever be the same with cellphones.

  21. Re:What's worse? by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's worse, committing a crime or exposing a crime?

    Are you really having to stop and think about it?

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  22. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Completely irrelevant.

    A crime is illegal regardless of if you get paid to report it or not.
    Why do you find it so important that we discuss everything but NSAs misbehavior?

  23. Re:According to the NSA, you are not a US citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the Navaho Speakers of WW2 would probably qualify in your list. Even today they speak to eah other in Navaho and also write emails using their native language.

    Yep Traitors/Terrorists/Bad Guys the lot of them

    There are probably more than a few inside the 'Beltway' that would agree with that last statement though I do not.

    Posting this may well get me on their 'they are a person of interest list', along with probably 30% of US Citizens.
    Paranoia at its best.

  24. You just don't get it do you?!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have the right from search and seizure.
    That means that unless YOU (YOU!) are specifically under reasonable suspicion (and often probable cause), for having done something, you CANNOT be touched.
    Any and all bulk metadata collection and bulk full take, regardless of who is eventually pulled out of the pile,
    IS AGAINST YOU AND YOUR RIGHTS TO NOT BE COLLECTED. DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?!?!?!
    Unless YOU're in some shit and have reasonable/probable specifically upon YOU (FIRST!!!!) Your metadata is YOUR BUSINESS.
    They CANNOT just go grab all the metadata, then go link it all up fishing.
    Metadata is YOU.... YOU FUCKING STUPID PEOPLE.
    And they have ZERO right to get it without an exact fucking warrant that NAMES YOU SPECIFICALLY.

    There is NO discussion to be had on these 'news' releases... it's just plain WRONG.

    So WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!
    Start calling your congresscritters and running third, fourth and N party campaigns... NOW!!!
    Or accept the rape of you, your children and grandchildren... FOREVER!!!!!

  25. How about a list of names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Post, List the names of the people intercepted. Maybe that will light a fire underneath a few of them.

  26. Re:What's worse? by linearz69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's worse, intercepting peoples messages or making them public for anyone to read?

    If by "making them public" you are referring to the messages the article wrote of, then you are a moron. Its clear the reporter got permission from the author of the message to reprint, and the article did very well to show how intrusive the collection process is.

    If by "making them public" you are referring to the NSA storing the intercepted message, and then allowing random defense contractor jerkoffs / lawyers / cops / self appointed authorities to access them in the future, then you might have a point.

  27. They're Spying On Everyone - These They Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're capturing "metadata" on every conversation/email/message. Now to me metadata includes the contents of the message (conveniently translated to text format, ergo "meta-")..

    In any case they're spying on all 300M Americans.They're guaranteed to read the ones referenced in the article.

  28. Re:What's worse? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

    Plus the trolls are plentiful enough they don't need to PAY them to find a dissenting opinion!

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  29. Re:Does Snowden know anything ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how much do you get paid to spread bullshit and use illogical arguments in order to attempt to justify the unjustifiable?

    I ask not for myself, of course, but I have an ex-girlfriend that I think would be great for the job.

  30. Two words: "parallel construction" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government is clearly breaking American citizens (and those on its soil) constitutional protections. The NSA does the spying and hands off "tips" to American law enforcement. American law enforcement are then required to do what is called "parallel construction" whereby they lie to the court on how the investigation came about.

    If you think your not in this dragnet think again. And not only are you in the dragnet if the NSA thinks law enforcement will benefit from the data they'll pass it on. For those of you who remember 9/11 and the laws which were passed the one really dangerous protection that was eliminated was separation of FBI/police/NSA. The government consolidated these agencies into the department of homeland security with the specific intent to make it easier to share data between them. This was in the name of fighting terrorism. The reason we had these laws that prevented the sharing of data in the first place though was because of civil rights abuses in the past. Think Martin Luther King.

    The only true patriots on 9/11 were thrilled. Not because innocent people died, but because somebody was fighting back against an illegal acting and oppressive government. While its a different form of oppression it is oppression. The reason for 9/11 was the US governments oppression in the middle east (and even this may have been facilitated by our own government, but keep in mind that is pure speculation). Now these terrorist may be oppressors too, for which we should object, but anything to quell the US government and rein it in is a good thing. Unfortunately the reality is it only works when a large and powerful enough opposing force does acts. And in this case the government used it as an excuse to seize even more control.

  31. "Fireworks Show" still to come by joelholdsworth · · Score: 3, Informative

    Note that this is not yet Greenwald's "Fireworks show" - his promised grand finale was delayed from 4th July. From what I've gleaned, there will be a big-bang scoop naming specific names of US citizens - major public and political figures - who were wiretapped by the NSA. USG has claimed there will be some harm done, so the story has been delayed while the journalist team investigate.

    Stay tuned. I can't wait.

    1. Re:"Fireworks Show" still to come by Lakitu · · Score: 2

      Out of curiosity, where did you hear this?

      I think it's really interesting that of the "minimized" identities listed in the article, one of them is

      A “minimized U.S. president-elect” begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current “minimized U.S. president” appear 1,227 times in the following four years.

      Does this mean they were reading Obama's communications after he was elected to become President, and then scrubbed his name from it?

    2. Re:"Fireworks Show" still to come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there will be a big-bang scoop naming specific names of US citizens

      Unless they're named Steve or Amy, I'm not going to expect a big bang anything from it. Nobody gets worked up when the government targets Abu Bubbadubba, even if he is a 5th generation American.

    3. Re:"Fireworks Show" still to come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing it was delayed. Nothing says "news hole" like the Friday of a holiday weekend.

      BTW, to those reading this, Googling for Greenwald's "Fireworks show" finds multiple news articles on it.

    4. Re:"Fireworks Show" still to come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's been published:
      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/09/under-surveillance/

  32. hmm.... by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't really specify how the 90% were spied upon. It could simply be as a consequence of recording a telephone from a known suspect. I imagine that even a terrorists normal activity consists of many mundane things that involve innocent people: they order pizza, they go to bars, they buy things in stores, etc. Of course if someone is under surveillance, all these innocent people also get involved by the simple fact that they become somehow possible accessories in his crime. I would imagine that 90% of the activity of any criminal, including organised crime, is fairly innocuous, and innocent people will be also recorded because of this.

    What I would really like to know is how much of this gathering of information is a consequence of the gathering of information on a possible suspect or simply a mass gathering of data about everyone with the filter applied afterwards. If the suspect is already under surveillance, I imagine that the innocent population would tolerate a loss of privacy simply because that person is a threat. If it is the other way around, that is that information is gathered indiscriminately in order to search for possible suspects, then it is extremely dangerous.

    The fact that the Post does not describe in detail these findings makes the article more sensational than useful in my opinion.

    1. Re:hmm.... by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      We have a government that's collecting so-called "metadata" on nearly everyone in the country even though it is unconstitutional--one that has lied a myriad of times--and you have some reason to doubt this?

      If the suspect is already under surveillance, I imagine that the innocent population would tolerate a loss of privacy simply because that person is a threat.

      I can't believe I have to keep reminding people of this, but the US is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Free and brave people do not sacrifice such freedoms for safety. I'd rather risk death (though it's not so clear that any of this improves safety) than allow the TSA, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, protest permits, etc. to continue, and any person who wants to live in a free country would agree.

      If it is the other way around, that is that information is gathered indiscriminately in order to search for possible suspects, then it is extremely dangerous.

      It's already extremely dangerous to punish innocent people in the pursuit of alleged criminals and terrorists. It's not something that would happen if we were truly the land of the free.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:hmm.... by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      It doesn't specify all of them, but it does specify some of them:

      If a target entered an online chat room, the NSA collected the words and identities of every person who posted there, regardless of subject, as well as every person who simply “lurked,” reading passively what other people wrote.

      There are others, too, but this would imply that if one of the legitimate targets had a slashdot account, or some other message board, anyone posting or reading the same site might be scooped up into the list of "incidental" targets.

      Anyone showing signs of being a "likely" American, according to the article, were then "minimized". ie, their names were scrubbed. Of course their criteria for determining likely American status is not very rigorous.

    3. Re:hmm.... by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention this: https://www.schneier.com/blog/...

    4. Re:hmm.... by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I managed to miss that in the news, but it's absolutely a load of bullshit and it needs to go. Just in case anyone else missed it like I did:

      From NDR:

      The monitoring of connections to an MIT graduate’s server on the university campus is part of the intelligence services’ attempt to particularly focus on users of privacy software on the internet. The computer server is owned by US citizen Roger Dingledine, the creator of the Tor anonymity software. The IP address of the server operated by Dingledine is clearly defined in the source code as targeted object.

      From NDR:

      The former NSA director General Keith Alexander stated that all those communicating with encryption will be regarded as terror suspects and will be monitored and stored as a method of prevention, as quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in August last year. The top secret source code published here indicates that the NSA is making a concerted effort to combat any and all anonymous spaces that remain on the internet. Merely visiting privacy-related websites is enough for a user's IP address to be logged into an NSA database.

      Oh, and a sample of the rules. Do you read Linux Journal?

      // START_DEFINITION /*
      These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
      Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
      extremists on extremist forums.
      */

      $TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux'
      or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor ');
      $TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*'); // END_DEFINITION // START_DEFINITION /*
      This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic
      Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs,
      or viewing websites that detail TAILs.
      */
      fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')=
      fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or
      url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites); // END_DEFINITION

    5. Re:hmm.... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Yes, because there's no possible way people would ever use Tor for planning to do illegal things.

    6. Re:hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, is that a reasonable attitude?

      (...) because there's no possible way people would ever use firearms to do illegal things.

      (...) because there's no possible way people would ever use cars to do illegal things.

      (...) because there's no possible way people would ever use computers to do illegal things.

      (...) because there's no possible way people would ever use footwear to do illegal things.

      (...) because there's no possible way people would ever use lathes to make firearms.

      (...) because there's no possible way people would ever use pressure cookers to make bombs.

      See how that works?

    7. Re:hmm.... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Guess which of those things we now take some security precautions with, such as tracking or licensing the sale of or inspecting in hazardous contexts?

      All of them. You have just listed a list of things we treat seriously because they can be used to do illegal things and we don't want that.

  33. Re:What's worse? by Lakitu · · Score: 1

    That's probably the funniest noir moment about this. The Washington Post, a newspaper, is being trusted with data so sensitive they don't even want to reveal some of it publicly.

    A newspaper! I think I'd rather give my credit card information to Target than trust a newspaper company with knowing anything about the internet.

    I would count the days until lax security leads to the raw data leaking onto the general internet, but it's probably already been read by Unit 61337.

  34. Re:What's worse? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    It would be nice if the American government was competent.

    That way, they could perform miracles of a semi-religious nature and we'd never know about it.

    The problem I have is that we know about it.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  35. Hang him high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it he is still alive to continue to trash Americans' security?

  36. LBJ Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Every man should know that his conversations, his correspondence, and his personal life are private."

    ~ Lyndon B. Johnson

  37. TOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they believe TOR exit nodes are legitimate targets (which is a very difficult question), then all of the sudden, the volume of collection starts to look very reasonable.

    1. Re:TOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey NSA shill! You'll get yours, and I'll get mine, and together we'll both hang high.

  38. What worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem will be when most of the countries will drop american services such as cloud, facebook, google, etc.. Russia already sign the low, that all data must be preserve in russia, otherwise they will cut access on isp level. Same in china, brazil. There will be many struggle it companies without ability to expand outside of usa market or they will build center in such countries to avoid being cut.

  39. Re:According to the NSA, you are not a US citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus they memorized all the secret alien docs. Source: X-Files.

  40. just from yahoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about your precious google? or every other site on the internet?

  41. Re: What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus is it really that hard to figure out which is worse, someone taking a picture of your dirty underwear or someone exsposing that crime by broadcasting the picture to the world?

    When the "crime" is invasion of privacy I think it's pretty obvious.

  42. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From where I stand, if intercepting is unconstitutional, then by fruit of the poisoned tree tennets, releasing the tainted info can't be any more constitutional --be it in a court of law (where the tennet is upheld), to your friends, in a public newspaper listing or wherever you did not personally approve of putting your personal... intellectual property ; )
    Yeah, call it that. Isn't this similar to how the courts help crack down on piracy issues

  43. Re:According to the NSA, you are not a US citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Navajo isn't foreign to America.

  44. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The obvious answer.
    But the government made it a crime to collect information that would expose a crime. We all know he commited a crime in the legal sense, and this whole ordeal of Snowden vs. the NSA would require pixie-dust to resolve without the [criminalized] whistleblower route.

  45. Re: What's worse? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    someone taking a picture of your dirty underwear

    The obvious question would be whether it has skidmarks in it...

  46. Re: According to the NSA, you are not a US citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Capitol Beltway is a highway that literally circles Washington DC. You don't need to dramatically quote beltway like that, but "inside the Beltway" looks better.

  47. Anyone wondering now why FEMA's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Building camps all over w/ razorwire pointing inward (keeps you in) + 3 body caskets in them too? I'm not. I.E.-> You don't "play ball w/ the in-team" (military industrial complex) in you're going to go, AFTER they "get the goods on you" via PRISM!!!!

  48. Re:Anyone wondering now why FEMA's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK is that you? Nobody else spams quite like you.

  49. NSA violated its own charter/rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA's not allowed to surveil internal to U.S. citizenry. Only foreigners. FBI can surveil us inside the US though. Get it?

  50. Re:Anyone wondering now why FEMA's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you, apk's gay admirer? Doesn't matter who posted it. It got me thinking on what it said.

  51. The U.S. President by PineHall · · Score: 1

    Some of them border on the absurd, using titles that could apply to only one man. A “minimized U.S. president-elect” begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current “minimized U.S. president” appear 1,227 times in the following four years.

    So the President was not the intended surveillance target but his correspondence was unintentionally caught up in their surveillance net as they target terrorists. And they save the President's correspondence. If I was the President I would be very upset.

  52. Anyone still wondering why FEMA's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Building camps all over, razorwire pointing in @ their fencetops (keeps you in) + 3 body capable caskets in em? I'm not: You don't "play ball w/ the in-team" (military industrial complex) into em you're going AFTER they "get the goods on you" via PRISM...

  53. Re:Anyone wondering now why FEMA's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. It's an NSA shill trying to get you away from possible truth you read and to stop you thinking.

  54. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you, apk's gay secret admirer? Doesn't matter who posted it. It got me thinking on what it said.

    It's GAY secret admirer (since the troll posted by ac like all apk's trolls lately do since he's kicked their asses under their registered luser accounts so many times and tosses it back in their faces when they use those registered luser slashdot accounts).

  55. When is the US regime going to prosecute the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The American NSA Stasi is out of control. I wonder if it is now too late to be able to restore some form of democracy to the United States. The lines between corporations, the military, and the ruling junta are now so blurred that it may no longer be possible to effect a bloodless separation.

  56. Re:What's worse? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    It depends entirely on how you expose the crime - posting the blackmail material into the public eye while exposing the blackmailer hasn't done the victim any good, nor would publishing a sexual predators photographs or videos help the victim.

  57. No-brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One is whether it's wrong to spy on anyone

    That's a no-brainer. Simply imagine that instead of the government spying on you, it's your next-door neighbor -- intercepting your email, tracking your location, recording your every online and cellular movement into a permanent database.

    Would you (or any conscious human being) approve of that? Of course not.

    So now, the question becomes this: what makes government any different than this hypothetical stalker? After all, government is comprised of mere human beings, each of whom operates in his own self-interest, just like your next-door stalker.

  58. Re:What's worse? by Arker · · Score: 1

    You misunderstand the function of law enforcement.

    It is not, directly, to help the victim. In many cases the victim is, after all, beyond help.

    Rather, it is to prevent future victims. First by putting the victimizer out of business - and if that doesnt help the existing victim, in fact even if hurts the victim, it still has to be done, for the sake of the potential future victims. This is why we ask rape victims to testify even though they may find that as traumatic as the original crime. Not to fix the damage that's been done (that's the function of civil law, not criminal law) but to prevent future damage.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  59. Re:What's worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blackmail is a slippery slope. Breaking out of it at a perceived loss may well be better than sliding downward. Berlin's mayor Wowereit was as far as I remember put under pressure from political opponents and/or the tabloids (hard to distinguish at times) because of being (closeted) homosexual. He countered by declaring publicly at a party convention "I'm gay, and that's a good thing.".

    As this then still courageous step did appear to rather benefit than harm his political career, several other politicians came out in following years.

  60. Billboard Campaign by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    and huh .... wait. They could get that stuff on anyone, couldn't they. They could get that on me.

    I think the most effective campaign to raise true awareness of the dangers of the organs of state security would be highway billboards that merely say:

    The NSA knows what you did.

  61. Re:What's worse? by Suffering+Bastard · · Score: 1

    I guess reality hasn't strayed far from ridiculous Ren & Stimpy fiction.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_dyOxAfEzI

    From 8:25 on (though the rest is pretty hilarious).

    --
    "Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
    - Deep Thought