Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Secretly Scanned Customer Emails For US Intelligence (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares with us an exclusive report from Reuters: Yahoo Inc last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the matter. The company complied with a classified U.S. government directive, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI, said two former employees and a third person apprised of the events. Some surveillance experts said this represents the first case to surface of a U.S. Internet company agreeing to a spy agency's demand by searching all arriving messages, as opposed to examining stored messages or scanning a small number of accounts in real time. It is not known what information intelligence officials were looking for, only that they wanted Yahoo to search for a set of characters. That could mean a phrase in an email or an attachment, said the sources, who did not want to be identified. Reuters was unable to determine what data Yahoo may have handed over, if any, and if intelligence officials had approached other email providers besides Yahoo with this kind of request. The two former employees say that the decision Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer made to obey the directive resulted in the June 2015 departure of CISO Alex Stamos, who left to work for Facebook. The company said in response to Reuters questions about the demand, "Yahoo is a law abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States."
Obama had the most transparent administration in history. If you don't agree, you will be subject to double enhanced surveillance.
...the only department of the US Government that actually listens to you.
Oh, wait...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY!
"....Nobody here but yahoo customers...."
I have a Yahoo! mail account, which was my main contact account for things like my bank, credit cards and so on. After 2 cases of password breaks, I've now migrated away from that and sent them all to gmail, which I was using for something else.
Looks like once the remaining people on it leave, there won't be even a subscriber base to make Yahoo! even worth acquiring.
I'll bet a whole dollar that Microsoft, Google and Apple have been secretly doing this for ages too.
She ignored employees who wanted to continue the company practice of working from home, executives who wanted to take the site in a different direction, and shareholders who wanted her to be competent in her job and actually increase shareholder value in ways other than just ridding her inheritance of the Alibaba position.
That's correct. When the baby boomers are retired, retirees outnumbers workers, and two-thirds of the federal budget goes to Social Security and Medicare in 2030, taxes will have to go way up to pay for everything else.
We could always set up public health care like any other reasonable country and take the health care corporations' extortion out of the equation. Nah.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
The scale is what wasn't know. this is every email going through there servers. Which is unconstitutional. Oh, and their poor implementation led to back door access as well.
Other questions still to be answered: Did google & microsoft do the same thing? So far, they've said 'no comment'. Which isn't good.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Also remember, this happened in the timeframe (mid 2015) that Apple was actively fighting the FBI to not build a software hack into iOS. So it can be fought. And won.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
If they were a law-abiding company, they would DENY requests for warrantless wiretaps.
Indeed. Because, if the law or regulation under which they are demanded is unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional from the moment it was passed. It "never existed":
If the law is unconstitutional, not only does Yahoo not have any legal requirement to grant the access, but the non-existent legal framework doesn't protect them from any action against them by people who were harmed, or against prosecution for the violation of any laws they broke in the process of "obeying" the non-law.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
No joke. Choose your source. It happened.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...
or google "trump security briefing nuclear"
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
People old enough to remember when AOL was in BIG BIG TROUBLE in the 90's because they couldn't figure out how to install the FBI's carnivore mail server plug-in already knew the government was already actively scanning all of our telecommunications.
Everyone ignores the fact that the FBI has been doing this for the last 20 years, but makes a big commotion about the NSA doing it. Yawn.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
As far as free market medical care goes, if one has money to pay out of pocket for a medical procedure they can always get it. In countries with single payer medical care systems there are always private alternatives if one can afford to pay. While I am not a fan of Obamacare I don't see why people feel justified in complaining about it when healthcare prices are dictated by the free market they want to revert back to. Healthcare prices have always been skyrocketing even before Obamacare, the baby boomers just didn't notice it because they didn't need those services until today.
Regardless of a single payer or free market health care system in America the state and federal healthcare regulators need to require healthcare providers to publicly publish current health service prices and outcomes. Why is it when I visit a healthcare facility I always have to sign a waiver saying I am liable for paying for any service the provider deems necessary at whatever price the provider dictates? That is like going into a retail store and the sales associate fills your shopping cart up with whatever unpriced merchandise they think you want and then mail you a bill a few weeks later. It is absurd. I think price and outcome transparency would go a long way to drive down prices.
Also getting rid of for-profit health insurance companies would be a tremendous consumer savings. I have been covered by all the name brand health insurance companies over the years and they provide nothing of value beyond central planing/price fixing with providers. They provide no guidance on cost savings, don't want offend a provider, and I get dozens of bills from all the providers sent directly to me to figure out what was done and if it was necessary. They skim their profits off the top and then make up for it by denying claims or raising prices. The more money that goes directly to the providers the better.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
trivial to fund those, right now only the first $118,500 of income is taxable for Social Security. Raise that limit and the problem goes away, and it only affects the upper middle class and upper class.
Problem solved. There is no real problem.