Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Or doing your own research is not your game?

Tim NEVER does his own research. The closest thing you'll get from him is that he heard some unknown radio person talk about something. And he's often ignorant of the topic being discussed. I mean, in this very thread at this stage he claimed ignorance about whether the NSA lied to congress. I'd be embarrassed if I were Tim given how often he's caught with that level of ignorance. So no, he does not do any research and even when others do it for him he'll forget the things they prove to him.

So in essence, most who argue with tim are arguing with an idiot. Nicely played tim.

Thanks. This is completely true if you believe Strike. Do you? In less than a page I've been called an idiot, a fan of totalitarianism, and also compared to King George III. I must be doing something right...

 

[drummer]

Or doing your own research is not your game?

Tim NEVER does his own research. The closest thing you'll get from him is that he heard some unknown radio person talk about something. And he's often ignorant of the topic being discussed. I mean, in this very thread at this stage he claimed ignorance about whether the NSA lied to congress. I'd be embarrassed if I were Tim given how often he's caught with that level of ignorance. So no, he does not do any research and even when others do it for him he'll forget the things they prove to him.

So in essence, most who argue with tim are arguing with an idiot. Nicely played tim.

Thanks. This is completely true if you believe Strike. Do you?In less than a page I've been called an idiot, a fan of totalitarianism, and also compared to King George III. I must be doing something right...

If you call thread pollution "something right", you must think pulling a Dutch Oven on you SO after drinking milk is "something right" as well.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Or doing your own research is not your game?

Tim NEVER does his own research. The closest thing you'll get from him is that he heard some unknown radio person talk about something. And he's often ignorant of the topic being discussed. I mean, in this very thread at this stage he claimed ignorance about whether the NSA lied to congress. I'd be embarrassed if I were Tim given how often he's caught with that level of ignorance. So no, he does not do any research and even when others do it for him he'll forget the things they prove to him.

So in essence, most who argue with tim are arguing with an idiot. Nicely played tim.

Thanks. This is completely true if you believe Strike. Do you?In less than a page I've been called an idiot, a fan of totalitarianism, and also compared to King George III. I must be doing something right...

Well, were you aware that the NSA had lied to congress prior to this afternoon?

 

[Politician Spock]

Spock -- I cannot unilaterally enforce the tenets of the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of ideals -- if I decide that those ideals are worthwhile to uphold, but a vastly more powerful self-perpetuating quasi-governmental entity decides otherwise ... what's the play?

The lives of those who died for the country is a red herring, because those that uphold and carry out the snooping programs really don't care.

The Constituion is law. And not just any law, it is the law of the land. I will not engage in a discussion with someone who believes otherwise. To do so is a stupid endeavor, and I will be beat by the experience of the one who took me there.

Doug... didn't want you to miss out on this: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=686915&p=15846355

 

[Doug B]

Doug... didn't want you to miss out on this: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=686915&p=15846355

My concern is that the NSA acts as though they're complying, but then carries on with greater secrecy under deeper cover.

 

[Politician Spock]

Doug... didn't want you to miss out on this: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=686915&p=15846355

My concern is that the NSA acts as though they're complying, but then carries on with greater secrecy under deeper cover.

Which is why people in the NSA who choose to do that need to go to prison when they are caught. The fact that advances in technology make it easier for them to do, does NOT excuse their decisions to do it. At one time a tape recorder was cutting edge technology. Even Andy Griffith understood the technology can't be used to violate the bill of rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kIdcY6tJaQ

I understand you believe we can't ever make it go away. I AGREE! Some will chose to do it. But that's no different than theft, murder, rape, and even terrorism. No matter how much justice punishes those who have been caught doing it, there will always be people behind them who choose to do it too. So I don't believe these issues of government corruption will ever go away. But when they are caught, they need to be brought to justice, and not excused by the idea of "why fight it? It's never going to go away."

People like you and timschochet are like Opie in the Andy Griffith video. I understand you see the benefit of how the latest and greatest technology can help the government protect us. But there is a greater cost to gaining that benefit that you can't possibly be willing to give up if you understood how valueable it really is.

 

[tommyboy]

Irritating people = doing something right in Tims world.

Youve been wrong on this topic for 3 months running.

 

[tommyboy]

Doug... didn't want you to miss out on this: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=686915&p=15846355

My concern is that the NSA acts as though they're complying, but then carries on with greater secrecy under deeper cover.

Same thing the IRS is doing. Our govt is out of control

 

[tom22406]

NSA paid millions to cover Prism costs for tech companies

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid

 

[MikeIke]

NSA bugged UN headquarters. If true, that's highly illegal and has nothing to do with terrorism.

Aug 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency has bugged the United Nations' New York headquarters, Germany's Der Spiegel weekly said on Sunday in a report on U.S. spying that could further strain relations between Washington and its allies.

Citing secret U.S. documents obtained by fugitive former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, Der Spiegel said the files showed how the United States systematically spied on other states and institutions.

Der Spiegel said the European Union and the U.N.'s Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were among those targeted by U.S. intelligence agents.

In the summer of 2012, NSA experts succeeded in getting into the U.N. video conferencing system and cracking its coding system, according one of the documents cited by Der Spiegel.

"The data traffic gives us internal video teleconferences of the United Nations (yay!)," Der Spiegel quoted one document as saying, adding that within three weeks the number of decoded communications rose to 458 from 12.

Internal files also show the NSA spied on the EU legation in New York after it moved to new rooms in autumn 2012. Among the documents copied by Snowden from NSA computers are plans of the EU mission, its IT infrastructure and servers.

According to the documents, the NSA runs a bugging programme in more than 80 embassies and consulates worldwide called "Special Collection Service". "The surveillance is intensive and well organised and has little or nothing to do with warding off terrorists," wrote Der Spiegel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/usa-security-nsa-idUSL6N0GQ0HZ20130825

 

[tom22406]

$52.6 Billion spent on these programs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html?hpid=z1

And also over 4,000 possible cases of suspected compromised information by one of it's own.

•The NSA planned to investigate at least 4,000 possible insider threats in 2013, cases in which the agency suspected sensitive information may have been compromised by one of its own. The budget documents show that the U.S. intelligence community worried long before Snowden’s leaks about “anomalous behavior” by personnel with access to highly classified material.

 

[Slapdash]

N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web

By NICOLE PERLROTH, JEFF LARSON and SCOTT SHANE

The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.

The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show.

Many users assume — or have been assured by Internet companies — that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it that way. The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets, restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program code-named Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.

Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested billions of dollars in a clandestine campaign to preserve its ability to eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own “back door” in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth.

The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated.

The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted. In some cases, companies say they were coerced by the government into handing over their master encryption keys or building in a back door. And the agency used its influence as the world’s most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world.

“For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies,” said a 2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A. accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. “Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online. Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable.”

When the British analysts, who often work side by side with N.S.A. officers, were first told about the program, another memo said, “those not already briefed were gobsmacked!”

An intelligence budget document makes clear that the effort is still going strong. “We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit Internet traffic,” the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget request for the current year.

In recent months, the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden have described the N.S.A.’s reach in scooping up vast amounts of communications around the world. The encryption documents now show, in striking detail, how the agency works to ensure that it is actually able to read the information it collects.

The agency’s success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans’ e-mails or phone calls without a warrant. But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in 2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot necessarily be restrained by privacy technology. N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features.

The N.S.A., which has specialized in code-breaking since its creation in 1952, sees that task as essential to its mission. If it cannot decipher the messages of terrorists, foreign spies and other adversaries, the United States will be at serious risk, agency officials say.

Just in recent weeks, the Obama administration has called on the intelligence agencies for details of communications by leaders of Al Qaeda about a terrorist plot and of Syrian officials’ messages about the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. If such communications can be hidden by unbreakable encryption, N.S.A. officials say, the agency cannot do its work.

But some experts say the N.S.A.’s campaign to bypass and weaken communications security may have serious unintended consequences. They say the agency is working at cross-purposes with its other major mission, apart from eavesdropping: ensuring the security of American communications.

Some of the agency’s most intensive efforts have focused on the encryption in universal use in the United States, including Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL; virtual private networks, or VPNs; and the protection used on fourth-generation, or 4G, smartphones. Many Americans, often without realizing it, rely on such protection every time they send an e-mail, buy something online, consult with colleagues via their company’s computer network, or use a phone or a tablet on a 4G network.

For at least three years, one document says, GCHQ, almost certainly in collaboration with the N.S.A., has been looking for ways into protected traffic of popular Internet companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft’s Hotmail. By 2012, GCHQ had developed “new access opportunities” into Google’s systems, according to the document. (Google denied giving any government access and said it had no evidence its systems had been breached).

“The risk is that when you build a back door into systems, you’re not the only one to exploit it,” said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. “Those back doors could work against U.S. communications, too.”

Paul Kocher, a leading cryptographer who helped design the SSL protocol, recalled how the N.S.A. lost the heated national debate in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip.

“And they went and did it anyway, without telling anyone,” Mr. Kocher said. He said he understood the agency’s mission but was concerned about the danger of allowing it unbridled access to private information.

“The intelligence community has worried about ‘going dark’ forever, but today they are conducting instant, total invasion of privacy with limited effort,” he said. “This is the golden age of spying.”

A Vital Capability

The documents are among more than 50,000 shared by The Guardian with The New York Times and ProPublica, the nonprofit news organization. They focus on GCHQ but include thousands from or about the N.S.A.

Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful privacy tools.

The files show that the agency is still stymied by some encryption, as Mr. Snowden suggested in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian’s Web site in June.

“Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on,” he said, though cautioning that the N.S.A. often bypasses the encryption altogether by targeting the computers at one end or the other and grabbing text before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted.

The documents make clear that the N.S.A. considers its ability to decrypt information a vital capability, one in which it competes with China, Russia and other intelligence powers.

“In the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs,” a 2007 document said. “It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace.”

The full extent of the N.S.A.’s decoding capabilities is known only to a limited group of top analysts from the so-called Five Eyes: the N.S.A. and its counterparts in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only they are cleared for the Bullrun program, the successor to one called Manassas — both names of an American Civil War battle. A parallel GCHQ counterencryption program is called Edgehill, named for the first battle of the English Civil War of the 17th century.

Unlike some classified information that can be parceled out on a strict “need to know” basis, one document makes clear that with Bullrun, “there will be NO ‘need to know.’ ”

Only a small cadre of trusted contractors were allowed to join Bullrun. It does not appear that Mr. Snowden was among them, but he nonetheless managed to obtain dozens of classified documents referring to the program’s capabilities, methods and sources.

Ties to Internet Companies

When the N.S.A. was founded, encryption was an obscure technology used mainly by diplomats and military officers. Over the last 20 years, it has become ubiquitous. Even novices can tell that their exchanges are being automatically encrypted when a tiny padlock appears next to a Web address.

Because strong encryption can be so effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agency’s success depends on working with Internet companies — by getting their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering their software or hardware.

According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint Enabling Project, which “actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products’ designs” to make them “exploitable.” Sigint is the acronym for signals intelligence, the technical term for electronic eavesdropping.

By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by exploiting security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the communications of three foreign governments.

In one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with the request told The Times.

The 2013 N.S.A. budget request highlights “partnerships with major telecommunications carriers to shape the global network to benefit other collection accesses” — that is, to allow more eavesdropping.

At Microsoft, as The Guardian has reported, the N.S.A. worked with company officials to get pre-encryption access to Microsoft’s most popular services, including Outlook e-mail, Skype Internet phone calls and chats, and SkyDrive, the company’s cloud storage service.

Microsoft asserted that it had merely complied with “lawful demands” of the government, and in some cases, the collaboration was clearly coerced. Some companies have been asked to hand the government the encryption keys to all customer communications, according to people familiar with the government’s requests.

N.S.A. documents show that the agency maintains an internal database of encryption keys for specific commercial products, called a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically decode many messages. If the necessary key is not in the collection, a request goes to the separate Key Recovery Service, which tries to obtain it.

How keys are acquired is shrouded in secrecy, but independent cryptographers say many are probably collected by hacking into companies’ computer servers, where they are stored. To keep such methods secret, the N.S.A. shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys could have been acquired through legal means. “Approval to release to non-Sigint agencies,” a GCHQ document says, “will depend on there being a proven non-Sigint method of acquiring keys.”

Simultaneously, the N.S.A. has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agency’s 2013 budget request was to “influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies,” the most common encryption method.

Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members.

Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.”

“Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says.

Even agency programs ostensibly intended to guard American communications are sometimes used to weaken protections. The N.S.A.’s Commercial Solutions Center, for instance, invites the makers of encryption technologies to present their products to the agency with the goal of improving American cybersecurity. But a top-secret N.S.A. document suggests that the agency’s hacking division uses that same program to develop and “leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships with specific industry partners” to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products.

By introducing such back doors, the N.S.A. has surreptitiously accomplished what it had failed to do in the open. Two decades ago, officials grew concerned about the spread of strong encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy, designed by a programmer named Phil Zimmermann. The Clinton administration fought back by proposing the Clipper Chip, which would have effectively neutered digital encryption by ensuring that the N.S.A. always had the key.

That proposal met a backlash from an unlikely coalition that included political opposites like Senator John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican, and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, as well as the televangelist Pat Robertson, Silicon Valley executives and the American Civil Liberties Union. All argued that the Clipper would kill not only the Fourth Amendment, but also America’s global technology edge.

By 1996, the White House backed down. But soon the N.S.A. began trying to anticipate and thwart encryption tools before they became mainstream.

Each novel encryption effort generated anxiety. When Mr. Zimmermann introduced the Zfone, an encrypted phone technology, N.S.A. analysts circulated the announcement in an e-mail titled “This can’t be good.”

But by 2006, an N.S.A. document notes, the agency had broken into communications for three foreign airlines, one travel reservation system, one foreign government’s nuclear department and another’s Internet service by cracking the virtual private networks that protected them.

By 2010, the Edgehill program, the British counterencryption effort, was unscrambling VPN traffic for 30 targets and had set a goal of an additional 300.

But the agencies’ goal was to move away from decrypting targets’ tools one by one and instead decode, in real time, all of the information flying over the world’s fiber optic cables and through its Internet hubs, only afterward searching the decrypted material for valuable intelligence.

A 2010 document calls for “a new approach for opportunistic decryption, rather than targeted.” By that year, a Bullrun briefing document claims that the agency had developed “groundbreaking capabilities” against encrypted Web chats and phone calls. Its successes against Secure Sockets Layer and virtual private networks were gaining momentum.

But the agency was concerned that it could lose the advantage it had worked so long to gain, if the mere “fact of” decryption became widely known. “These capabilities are among the Sigint community’s most fragile, and the inadvertent disclosure of the simple ‘fact of’ could alert the adversary and result in immediate loss of the capability,” a GCHQ document warned.

Since Mr. Snowden’s disclosures ignited criticism of overreach and privacy infringements by the N.S.A., American technology companies have faced scrutiny from customers and the public over what some see as too cozy a relationship with the government. In response, some companies have begun to push back against what they describe as government bullying.

Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook have pressed for permission to reveal more about the government’s requests for cooperation. One e-mail encryption company, Lavabit, closed rather than comply with the agency’s demands for customer information; another, Silent Circle, ended its e-mail service rather than face such demands.

In effect, facing the N.S.A.’s relentless advance, the companies surrendered.

Ladar Levison, the founder of Lavabit, wrote a public letter to his disappointed customers, offering an ominous warning. “Without Congressional action or a strong judicial precedent,” he wrote, “I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&pagewanted=print

Happy Friday everyone

What a depressing new report this is. The most impactful revelations yet.

Serveral pieces in there reference the strong arguments that Doug B has made, that these agencies will opperate outside the law and there is little we could do to stop it. I also find it quite creepy that the gov't is naming programs that spy on Americans after Civil War battles.

The government will hack and bribe its way into any system they can. This is a body blow to whatever illusions of freedom we had left

 

[tom22406]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.’s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

 

[Slapdash]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.’s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

 

[RCon]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.’s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You know, timschochet's "this makes us more free" claim reminds me a lot of the debate during the creation of the 16th Amendment, in which the writers decided not to include an explicit cap on the income tax percentage. The original proposal would have capped income taxes at a few percentage points, but the writers ended up leaving it out, figuring that "public outcry" would keep the tax rates from ever approaching their proposed cap anyway. We see how well that logic worked.

 

[timschochet]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again. What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

 

[Slapdash]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

You can assert it over and over again. Doesn't make it true.

 

[RCon]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

I disagree, but the bigger point is that a society in which the government has access to all private e-mails is less free than a society in which e-mails exist and the government does not have access. Even if your assertion is correct, that's kind of like claiming that herpes is at least better than cancer.

 

[timschochet]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

You can assert it over and over again. Doesn't make it true.

My point is you misquoted me.

 

[Slapdash]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

You can assert it over and over again. Doesn't make it true.

My point is you misquoted me.

I wasn't quoting you dip####, I was mocking you.

Quite rich of you to latch onto that after the bs you pulled yesterday.

 

[timschochet]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

You can assert it over and over again. Doesn't make it true.

My point is you misquoted me.

I wasn't quoting you dip####, I was mocking you.

Quite rich of you to latch onto that after the bs you pulled yesterday.

 

[timschochet]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

I disagree, but the bigger point is that a society in which the government has access to all private e-mails is less free than a society in which e-mails exist and the government does not have access. Even if your assertion is correct, that's kind of like claiming that herpes is at least better than cancer.

Would you be willing to accept a society that had 30% more herpes in exchange for 50% less cancer? I would.

 

[RCon]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

I disagree, but the bigger point is that a society in which the government has access to all private e-mails is less free than a society in which e-mails exist and the government does not have access. Even if your assertion is correct, that's kind of like claiming that herpes is at least better than cancer.

Would you be willing to accept a society that had 30% more herpes in exchange for 50% less cancer? I would.

Why should we have to accept either when, per the analogy, a society with 50% less of both is easily achievable?

 

[Slapdash]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

You can assert it over and over again. Doesn't make it true.

My point is you misquoted me.

I wasn't quoting you dip####, I was mocking you.

Quite rich of you to latch onto that after the bs you pulled yesterday.

Good to see you are ignoring the new revelations in an attempt to win internet points.

 

[RCon]

Oh, and remember that post you made yesterday about it being extremely rare for government to deliberately lie to us? How many more incidents do you need before you admit that your government lies to you as often as it can?

 

[timschochet]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

You can assert it over and over again. Doesn't make it true.

My point is you misquoted me.

I wasn't quoting you dip####, I was mocking you.

Quite rich of you to latch onto that after the bs you pulled yesterday.

Good to see you are ignoring the new revelations in an attempt to win internet points.

I'm not attempting to win anything. I don't see that the new revelations are anything extraordinary, when it's been clear all along that the NSA either had or will eventually access to all this stuff. I find your statement "this is a body blow to whatever illusions of freedom we have left" to be quite absurd.

 

[RCon]

I'm not attempting to win anything. I don't see that the new revelations are anything extraordinary, when it's been clear all along that the NSA either had or will eventually access to all this stuff. I find your statement "this is a body blow to whatever illusions of freedom we have left" to be quite absurd.

Aren't you the one who's been arguing all along that the NSA's data collections efforts were limited and targeted?

 

[Slapdash]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

You can assert it over and over again. Doesn't make it true.

My point is you misquoted me.

I wasn't quoting you dip####, I was mocking you.

Quite rich of you to latch onto that after the bs you pulled yesterday.

Good to see you are ignoring the new revelations in an attempt to win internet points.

I'm not attempting to win anything. I don't see that the new revelations are anything extraordinary, when it's been clear all along that the NSA either had or will eventually access to all this stuff. I find your statement "this is a body blow to whatever illusions of freedom we have left" to be quite absurd.

Nothing extraordinary about the government hacking and bribing its way in private, secured systems?

 

[timschochet]

Oh, and remember that post you made yesterday about it being extremely rare for government to deliberately lie to us? How many more incidents do you need before you admit that your government lies to you as often as it can?

I grant that the government has not been exactly truthful in revealing it's methods for obtaining intelligence to fight terrorism, any more than it was truthful during the Cold War years about what the CIA was doing to fight the Soviet Union. Even so, I stand by what I wrote yesterday,

 

[timschochet]

I'm not attempting to win anything. I don't see that the new revelations are anything extraordinary, when it's been clear all along that the NSA either had or will eventually access to all this stuff. I find your statement "this is a body blow to whatever illusions of freedom we have left" to be quite absurd.

Aren't you the one who's been arguing all along that the NSA's data collections efforts were limited and targeted?

Not quite. I argued that their USE of the information was limited and targeted. I still believe that to be true. Unless you have programs to mine all that data looking for specific algorithms, the collection of it is useless. There's far too much of it.

 

[RCon]

I'm not attempting to win anything. I don't see that the new revelations are anything extraordinary, when it's been clear all along that the NSA either had or will eventually access to all this stuff. I find your statement "this is a body blow to whatever illusions of freedom we have left" to be quite absurd.

Aren't you the one who's been arguing all along that the NSA's data collections efforts were limited and targeted?

Not quite. I argued that their USE of the information was limited and targeted. I still believe that to be true. Unless you have programs to mine all that data looking for specific algorithms, the collection of it is useless. There's far too much of it.

And you don't think they have programs to mine the data they're collecting? They're just collecting it for ####s and giggles?

 

[RCon]

Oh, and remember that post you made yesterday about it being extremely rare for government to deliberately lie to us? How many more incidents do you need before you admit that your government lies to you as often as it can?

I grant that the government has not been exactly truthful in revealing it's methods for obtaining intelligence to fight terrorism, any more than it was truthful during the Cold War years about what the CIA was doing to fight the Soviet Union. Even so, I stand by what I wrote yesterday,

Oh, do we get to count campaign promises as lies? Seems like we should, in which case, you might as well just go erase that post.

 

[Slapdash]

Doug... didn't want you to miss out on this: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=686915&p=15846355

My concern is that the NSA acts as though they're complying, but then carries on with greater secrecy under deeper cover.

Best answer is probably just to abolish it.

 

[Slapdash]

N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features.

No wonder we need the Utah Data Center.

 

[Doug B]

Best answer is probably just to abolish it.

Then some other agency will be set up, under deeper cover and with fully blackmailable "employees", to do the same thing. Assuming such an agency doesn't already exist and the NSA as we know it is really just a flak catcher.

 

[The Commish]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

What "technology" specifically are you referring to?

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Tim's FFA approval rating has now plummeted past Congress' 8%, heading quickly towards Ariel Castro's 0%.

 

[Slapdash]

Best answer is probably just to abolish it.

Then some other agency will be set up, under deeper cover and with fully blackmailable "employees", to do the same thing. Assuming such an agency doesn't already exist and the NSA as we know it is really just a flak catcher.

Personally, I'm not sure why any of this activity should take place outside of the DoD if at all. If we cut the funding for these other agencies, they couldn't exist.

 

[The Commish]

Best answer is probably just to abolish it.

Then some other agency will be set up, under deeper cover and with fully blackmailable "employees", to do the same thing. Assuming such an agency doesn't already exist and the NSA as we know it is really just a flak catcher.

Personally, I'm not sure why any of this activity should take place outside of the DoD if at all. If we cut the funding for these other agencies, they couldn't exist.

Plausible deniability

 

[Doug B]

If we cut the funding for these other agencies, they couldn't exist.

Hard to verify that those kinds of cuts actually took place, though. Money is easy to hide, and most especially in an astronomically huge haystack.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Good thing that Syria thing is happening to distract everyone from this.

 

[Politician Spock]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

What "technology" specifically are you referring to?

Ball bearings.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not attempting to win anything. I don't see that the new revelations are anything extraordinary, when it's been clear all along that the NSA either had or will eventually access to all this stuff. I find your statement "this is a body blow to whatever illusions of freedom we have left" to be quite absurd.

Aren't you the one who's been arguing all along that the NSA's data collections efforts were limited and targeted?

Not quite. I argued that their USE of the information was limited and targeted. I still believe that to be true. Unless you have programs to mine all that data looking for specific algorithms, the collection of it is useless. There's far too much of it.

So it's okay for the NSA to spy all women naked, because only 0.01% of what they see is useful form them to wank off to?

 

[The Commish]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

What "technology" specifically are you referring to?

bump

 

[Politician Spock]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

What "technology" specifically are you referring to?

bumper cars

 

[timschochet]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

What "technology" specifically are you referring to?

bump

Sorry, thought I made this clear earlier. The technology of the internet and emails.

(Though I will also accept Politician Spock's theory that ball bearings and bumper cars have also made us more free.)

 

[Politician Spock]

Sorry, thought I made this clear earlier. The technology of the internet and emails.

(Though I will also accept Politician Spock's theory that ball bearings and bumper cars have also made us more free.)

Don't leave out the creation of the pickle!

 

[Slapdash]

Tim's FFA approval rating has now plummeted past Congress' 8%, heading quickly towards Ariel Castro's 0%.

Seems high.

 

[The Commish]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

What "technology" specifically are you referring to?

bump

Sorry, thought I made this clear earlier. The technology of the internet and emails.

(Though I will also accept Politician Spock's theory that ball bearings and bumper cars have also made us more free.)

You are going to have to explain to me how the internet and email have provided freedom....perhaps we should go over the definition of "freedom" before we go any further, because I'm not any more free today than I was in 1988

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This line in the article says it all for me.

"In effect, facing the N.S.A.s relentless advance, the companies surrendered."

The new normal!!

Remember, this makes us more free.

You misquoted me once again.What I wrote is that the same technology that makes it possible for the NSA to do what it is doing ironically serves to give the public more freedom than it has ever had. A society in which the government has access to all private emails is more free than a society in which emails don't exist.

What "technology" specifically are you referring to?

bump

Sorry, thought I made this clear earlier. The technology of the internet and emails.(Though I will also accept Politician Spock's theory that ball bearings and bumper cars have also made us more free.)

and how does this justify the NSA installing "back doors" into encryption?

ETA: Link changed to be more direct