PRISM: NSA/FBI Mining Internet Data since 2007

[Sausy]

Re: Manning.

If only the huge investments made in hardware and man hours spent monitoring the Internet and telecommunications provided value.

All of the most recent terrorist attempts on the United States have been confronted by civilians without any association to security agencies or the police service.

The 'underpants' bomber who attempted to hijack an aircraft on Christmas Day 2009 was detected by another passenger whose rapid and successful intervention disarmed the terrorist saving the lives of all on board the plane.

The Times Square bomber was identified by local street vendors noticing the strange behaviour of the perpetrator.

Tamerlan's brother Dzokhar evaded capture despite virtual martial law being declared in Boston and a massive man hunt involving swat teams, helicopters and armoured vehicles. The terrorist was arrested because a suspicious man went out to check the tarpaulin of his boat parked in his backyard which a neighbour had reported being loose where he discovered the terrorist hiding telephoning the police to report the injured man's whereabouts.

So much for hideously expensive snooping by the NSA.

Thank you, kallipolis. Why the hell should we take at face value what the government says about these programs when the truth is that it was ordinary people who did more to stop terrorists? When are we going to ell em to go to hell and demand our leaders remember they work for us, not the other way around? It's true the way of the world is spying on the enemy. But when did WE become the enemy? When did it become okay that surrendering freedom to protect it made any kind of common sense? When some say" I have done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear, so why should any other person without guilt"?.... that's the ticket those who love power want to cash in, to institutionalize surveillance to the point no one can be free... to set the stage for control that will be damned near impossible to fight against. Fuck the power elites now who dismiss concerns about the scope and intent of the surveillance potential, we still have time to stop this. This sounds alarmist, but we've been kept in the dark for a long time and the programs only seem to be growing exponentially. When will it be time for skepticism and demand for accountability and respect for individual liberties before the question is moot and no one would dare risk the wrath of the watchers? Orwell may have just been off by a few decades.

 

[Laufey]

10 years ago the government was pretty much debt free.

Then we Americanized the banking system and are now about the same as the US (per capita) in debt. Though we still have better life quality for the general population than the US despite the crisis.

The government made bad economic judgments but they are still far from being as corrupt as the American politicians.

 

[palbert]

.... Why is it the two broke ass countries whose leaders outright lied and deceived on a international level have citizens on this forum that are the ones so hard up and poking Americans?

One of those countries is the US, right?

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: Manning.

Thank you, kallipolis. Why the hell should we take at face value what the government says about these programs when the truth is that it was ordinary people who did more to stop terrorists? When are we going to ell em to go to hell and demand our leaders remember they work for us, not the other way around? It's true the way of the world is spying on the enemy. But when did WE become the enemy? When did it become okay that surrendering freedom to protect it made any kind of common sense? When some say" I have done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear, so why should any other person without guilt"?.... that's the ticket those who love power want to cash in, to institutionalize surveillance to the point no one can be free... to set the stage for control that will be damned near impossible to fight against. Fuck the power elites now who dismiss concerns about the scope and intent of the surveillance potential, we still have time to stop this. This sounds alarmist, but we've been kept in the dark for a long time and the programs only seem to be growing exponentially. When will it be time for skepticism and demand for accountability and respect for individual liberties before the question is moot and no one would dare risk the wrath of the watchers? Orwell may have just been off by a few decades.

You have no idea what this information has stopped. Again, as I said before, there is no evidence AT ALL that the government is spying on Americans. That is a paranoid assumption being made by certain people who write and read these articles. You are meant to be kept in the dark about this because they are intelligence activities. If you go broadcasting to everyone what you are doing, then the adversary knows exactly how to avoid it. You're posting on here right now in a mini-rant against the government and no one has come to haul you away yet. You've lost no liberties or freedoms and I'm honestly sick of hearing people bitch about losing those things when it hasn't actually happened in reality.

 

[Jack Springer]

There is no evidence that the spying has stopped anything -- the Administration will not talk about it.

There is evidence that they are spying. The huge buildings in Utah. Snowden. Clapper has admitted spying after lying about it.

The 4th Amendment

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.

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

What cause does Obama have to look into your emails, phone calls, correspondence? If he has a reason -- tell us. He's not talking.

 

[T-Rexx]

Re: Manning.

If only the huge investments made in hardware and man hours spent monitoring the Internet and telecommunications provided value.

All of the most recent terrorist attempts on the United States have been confronted by civilians without any association to security agencies or the police service.

The 'underpants' bomber who attempted to hijack an aircraft on Christmas Day 2009 was detected by another passenger whose rapid and successful intervention disarmed the terrorist saving the lives of all on board the plane.

The Times Square bomber was identified by local street vendors noticing the strange behaviour of the perpetrator.

Tamerlan's brother Dzokhar evaded capture despite virtual martial law being declared in Boston and a massive man hunt involving swat teams, helicopters and armoured vehicles. The terrorist was arrested because a suspicious man went out to check the tarpaulin of his boat parked in his backyard which a neighbour had reported being loose where he discovered the terrorist hiding telephoning the police to report the injured man's whereabouts.

So much for hideously expensive snooping by the NSA.

 

[frankfrank]

^ I entirely agree with a Jack springer post! (Ahhh...go one more post higher, T-Rexx jumped ahead in the queue while I was writing, haha.)

And in the middle of JUNE, AND on a day that set the June 12 temperature record for summer type heat (97 F), no less.

Does anybody ever stop to think how the alphabet-soup government agencies often step far outside their own bounds?

Does the "Deep Web" fall under this surveillance as well, or is it so well encrypted that the government can't even log it? Not that I have any plans to go there, anyway, ever.

Everybody who has even once looked at (for example) even one image of an underage person who may be presented in any way which may promote prurient interests, **could** be under surveillance, now, as possibly being involved in distribution. It doesn't matter if they got there because of clicking on a link in an email which promised big savings on dentures, but was instead a malicious link leading to kiddieporn.

Who among us can truly know everything about the background of everybody we've ever messaged with electronically, whether via phone, email, message board, etc.? There is a VERY good chance that at least SOME of have unknowingly, at least once, been in contact with somebody who may turn up on a terror watch list.

To paraphrase a common and very true adage,

Proprietary personal information in the wrong hands corrupts, and absolute power over that personal information will guarantee that it will be corrupted absolutely.

Are we all guilty until proven innocent? A "negative" is often hard to prove, when the other side is holding the cards, and the cards are so secret that you don't even know what they are.

 

[tigerfan482]

There is no evidence that the spying has stopped anything -- the Administration will not talk about it.

There is evidence that they are spying. The huge buildings in Utah. Snowden. Clapper has admitted spying after lying about it.

The 4th Amendment

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.

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

What cause does Obama have to look into your emails, phone calls, correspondence? If he has a reason -- tell us. He's not talking.

There is no evidence that Americans are being spied on. You haven't presented a single bit of evidence showing that any targeting and collection on Americans is taking place. You're taking the select details of a classified program and attaching your own paranoid applications to it. These programs have been approved by Congress, monitored by the Executive Branch, and adjudicated by the Judicial Branch. The proper procedures and duties, outlined in the same Constitution you are quoting, have been followed to create and execute these legal programs and yet you still argue against it. Attaching the word unconstitutional to everything you don't agree with doesn't make it validly unconstitutional. It's the same as those people who claim "Obamacare" is unconstitutional despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. The Constitution sets up a system to enact, enforce, and adjudicate laws of the land and that system has been followed.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Maxine Waters Video Explains Obama's Data Base, Everthing About Every Individual

I am also concerned what happens if this data collection continues unabated...and in 2017 a Rick-Santorum-cloned Republican Party convenes in full control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. The prospect of what-the-fuck they may choose to do with such information in their hands, is chilling.

To tweak an old adage::

Power over private personal information corrupts, and absolute power over private personal information corrupts absolutely. (And, no, there really IS NOTHING in place to stop Democratic administrations from being corrupted absolutely by this power, either.)

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: Maxine Waters Video Explains Obama's Data Base, Everthing About Every Individual

I am also concerned what happens if this data collection continues unabated...and in 2017 a Rick-Santorum-cloned Republican Party convenes in full control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. The prospect of what-the-fuck they may choose to do with such information in their hands, is chilling.

To tweak an old adage::

Power over private personal information corrupts, and absolute power over private personal information corrupts absolutely. (And, no, there really IS NOTHING in place to stop Democratic administrations from being corrupted absolutely by this power, either.)

What data collection? Can you be specific? Are you talking about the collection of metadata from Verizon which is already non-protected information? Are you talking about the potential information they could access on you if they got a warrant to do so? I'm not seeing in any of these articles where it talks about the NSA collecting scores of data on Americans.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Maxine Waters Video Explains Obama's Data Base, Everthing About Every Individual

As I understand it, the contents of everything, as well as just logs, are stored. FOR WHAT purpose would they store entire contents, if they didn't intend to possibly use it someday?

For what purpose would they continue to keep everything? I haven't heard anything about a "sunset" for irrelevant and innocent information, where it gets purged after a year or something. If everything is kept, believe me, there are SOME people who want to use the contents to gather up "bad guys." If we had a Pol Pot type of regime in power - which COULD HAPPEN in the United States, as many Americans will gladly sacrifice absolutely everything to be kept safe from the bogeyman - I don't even want to think...I just can't...

I fear terrorism less than I fear walking around in a big city, on a somewhat warm winter day, where there could be dangerous falling ice from high rooftops.

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: Maxine Waters Video Explains Obama's Data Base, Everthing About Every Individual

As I understand it, the contents of everything, as well as just logs, are stored. FOR WHAT purpose would they store entire contents, if they didn't intend to possibly use it someday?

For what purpose would they continue to keep everything? I haven't heard anything about a "sunset" for irrelevant and innocent information, where it gets purged after a year or something. If everything is kept, believe me, there are SOME people who want to use the contents to gather up "bad guys." If we had a Pol Pot type of regime in power - which COULD HAPPEN in the United States, as many Americans will gladly sacrifice absolutely everything to be kept safe from the bogeyman - I don't even want to think...I just can't...

I fear terrorism less than I fear walking around in a big city, on a somewhat warm winter day, where there could be dangerous falling ice from high rooftops.

Not sure what news story you're getting that from, but nothing presented ever stated either implicitly or explicitly that all of the content is stored somewhere. There are currently only 2 pieces of real information out there: 1) the Verizon warrant which has Verizon giving all metadata (and ONLY metadata as stated in the warrant) to the government and 2) the PRISM program which alleges that major internet companies have given NSA direct access to their data streams to collect data when they have a warrant to do so. Situation 1 involves metadata which has already been ruled as unprotected data and situation 2 doesn't involve compiling databases of content but instead allow for accessing the content directly when a warrant is obtained. Everything else that has been thrown into the mix is a bunch of conjecture and theories based on the views of whoever is writing whatever is being read.

Summary - there are 2 hard pieces of evidence and neither one deals with building massive databases of content.

And, despite the fact it is really no longer valid, the answer to your second question about why they would store the data - you store it so you can go back and access it later during an investigation or if you find another piece of information in the future and need to link it back to other possible participants. Data is either stored or instantaneously used and then it's gone. It's the same reason data would be stored anywhere. You've never heard of a sunset on the data because you've only been given part of the story on a classified program. However, the point is moot because we've just discussed this above.

Finally, I think it's a stretch to compare us to Pol Pot. It's definitely bordering on sensationalism at this point.

 

[JayHawk]

Snowden couldn't even get his salary correct so it makes a person wonder about his detailed account.

 

[rareboy]

The first time that this was reported was actually in 2006, I believe.

 

[Jack Springer]

There is no evidence that Americans are being spied on. You haven't presented a single bit of evidence showing that any targeting and collection on Americans is taking place. You're taking the select details of a classified program and attaching your own paranoid applications to it. These programs have been approved by Congress, monitored by the Executive Branch, and adjudicated by the Judicial Branch. The proper procedures and duties, outlined in the same Constitution you are quoting, have been followed to create and execute these legal programs and yet you still argue against it. Attaching the word unconstitutional to everything you don't agree with doesn't make it validly unconstitutional. It's the same as those people who claim "Obamacare" is unconstitutional despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. The Constitution sets up a system to enact, enforce, and adjudicate laws of the land and that system has been followed.

Tell me what is the purpose these new buildings in Utah -- coming up with new cookie recipes?

I want to be safe. I acknowledge that some rights have to be given up to be secure.

I also have a feeling your tune would change if it were a republican sitting the White House right now.

 

[tigerfan482]

Tell me what is the purpose these new buildings in Utah -- coming up with new cookie recipes?

I want to be safe. I acknowledge that some rights have to be given up to be secure.

I also have a feeling your tune would change if it were a republican sitting the White House right now.

Umm why is Google building data centers all over the US? Why does Microsoft have cloud data centers everywhere in the world? What about Amazon? Places build data centers to handle the data they need to store and process. A little research (i.e. visiting their site) shows that NSA is expected to do many computationally heavy tasks - signals intelligence, cryptography, network warfare, information assurance, etc. Many of those tasks, in today's world, would seemingly require huge amounts of data sets and processing capabilities. Sure, they could be storing your entire life on a hard drive, but I would say you have an equal chance of Google or Microsoft or Amazon or any other company using their data centers to do the same thing.

Governments build data centers in different states because a) it provides a better spread of infrastructure to provide redundancy against an attack and b) because some Congress person was able to successfully get the project in their area to bring in jobs and money.

My question is where is this idea that the government is constantly out to get its citizens (obviously prioritizing targeting them over any other task it may have to do, like fighting terrorism) come from? This isn't a situation where Jack Springer was rolled up and arrested because he posted on JUB and the government saw it and didn't agree with it. This is a situation where the partial details of a classified program were released by a guy who has already shown himself to be a dishonest person and everyone with this idea in their head that the government is out to control them is cramming those limited facts into this narrative that supports their position that they somehow no longer enjoy the freedoms and liberties they always have.

Everyone demands an infinite amount of hard evidence that the government doesn't have any data on them or that these programs have stopped terrorist acts, but I don't see equal demands for hard evidence that Mr. Snowden could have wiretapped anyone he wanted to or that the government is actually collecting and storing information on all of the citizens of this country. Why are people so quick to accept any bit of conspiracy theory thrown at them with little to no evidence to back it up?

 

[JayHawk]

I still go back to the simple concept of politics. The only thing politicians live for these days is getting dirt on and smearing the other side. Both sides defend this vehemently. BHO said is was tantamount to treason until he got a security clearance and saw the safe guards. The only voices against this are relatively junior senators who have no access because they are on shit committees since they are wet behind the ears.

 

[kallipolis]

Snowden couldn't even get his salary correct so it makes a person wonder about his detailed account.

Then the CIA and NSA were insane to employ him were his intelligence that lacking - as you have implied.

 

[kallipolis]

Why are people so quick to accept any bit of conspiracy theory thrown at them with little to no evidence to back it up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22883078

I quote

The US electronic spying chief has said massive surveillance programmes newly revealed by an ex-intelligence worker had disrupted dozens of terror plots.

In a US Senate hearing, National Security Agency (NSA) Director Keith Alexander defended the internet and telephone data snooping programmes.

Unquote

That the director of the NSA admits to snooping on Americans confirms that conspiratorial theories are redundant.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Possibly the most significant item in that article is that members of Congress admitted they haven't been attending their intelligence briefings. If these programs are supposed to have oversight, how does that happen when the overseers won't even do their jobs?