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

[timschochet]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse. All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's bad. It's very bad. I already changed my mind on this and want the whole thing shut down, as of several weeks ago (not that it matters what I think). You guys did tell me stuff like this would happen and you were right. I feel awful about it. I want the NSA to fight terrorism, but there has got to be a better way than this...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They are too busy dealing with contraception and Brinks employee's owning guns.

ETA: as well as Lebron's Decision II

PRIORITIES

Yes because the NSA should be able to get your emails at work, seeing as how your company has no 4th Amendment protections.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The National Security Agency and FBI have covertly monitored the emails of prominent Muslim-Americans—including a political candidate and several civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers—under secretive procedures intended to target terrorists and foreign spies.

According to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the list of Americans monitored by their own government includes:

• Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;

• Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;

• Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University;

• Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights;

• Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country.

The individuals appear on an NSA spreadsheet in the Snowden archives called “FISA recap”—short for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the Justice Department must convince a judge with the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there is probable cause to believe that American targets are not only agents of an international terrorist organization or other foreign power, but also “are or may be” engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The authorizations must be renewed by the court, usually every 90 days for U.S. citizens.

The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Many of the email addresses on the list appear to belong to foreigners whom the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

But a three-month investigation by The Intercept—including interviews with more than a dozen current and former federal law enforcement officials involved in the FISA process—reveals that in practice, the system for authorizing NSA surveillance affords the government wide latitude in spying on U.S. citizens.

The five Americans whose email accounts were monitored by the NSA and FBI have all led highly public, outwardly exemplary lives. All five vehemently deny any involvement in terrorism or espionage, and none advocates violent jihad or is known to have been implicated in any crime, despite years of intense scrutiny by the government and the press. Some have even climbed the ranks of the U.S. national security and foreign policy establishments.

“I just don’t know why,” says Gill, whose AOL and Yahoo! email accounts were monitored while he was a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates. “I’ve done everything in my life to be patriotic. I served in the Navy, served in the government, was active in my community—I’ve done everything that a good citizen, in my opinion, should do.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/09/under-surveillance/

Only posted part of the article but I highly suggest reading the entire thing.

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

But a three-month investigation by The Intercept—including interviews with more than a dozen current and former federal law enforcement officials involved in the FISA process—reveals that in practice, the system for authorizing NSA surveillance affords the government wide latitude in spying on U.S. citizens.

The US government via military (NSA) and civilian (FBI) branches having won the Cold War and fought valiant wars for freedom in Asia and Europe over the course of 100 years is now spying on US citizens.

The 3rd and 4th Amendments.

Period.

The End.

 

[drummer]

They are too busy dealing with contraception and Brinks employee's owning guns.

ETA: as well as Lebron's Decision II

PRIORITIES

Yes because the NSA should be able to get your emails at work, seeing as how your company has no 4th Amendment protections.

I guess that would work for the IRS too, wouldn't it?

Yet:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-spirit-of-the-fourth-amendment-and-the-nsas-disregard-for-it/284498/

 

[The Commish]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse.

All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's not like we can actually do anything about it...

Well, we could stop serving data up on a silver platter, but I agree. Even if we went the extra mile to secure our data the best we can as individuals, it's a matter of time before it's hacked open once the NSA collects it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They are too busy dealing with contraception and Brinks employee's owning guns.

ETA: as well as Lebron's Decision II

PRIORITIES

Yes because the NSA should be able to get your emails at work, seeing as how your company has no 4th Amendment protections.

I guess that would work for the IRS too, wouldn't it?

Yet:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-spirit-of-the-fourth-amendment-and-the-nsas-disregard-for-it/284498/

Uh the IRS needs a warrant to do this.

They can demand that you and your corporation produce backup for your deductions and expenses (never mind they can't do the same) but no the IRS cannot plop a guy down in your company office and take notes of all comings and goings and put a mirror on your email exchange server, at least not without a warrant.

By the way when the military gets involved, which the NSA arguably is, the 3rd Amendment gets involved too. We have just never thought about it previously because until now the military rarely ever had the temerity to try to enter our homes. Good paper here from Georgetown on the subject (have to download as pdf).

 

[tom22406]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse. All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's bad. It's very bad. I already changed my mind on this and want the whole thing shut down, as of several weeks ago (not that it matters what I think).You guys did tell me stuff like this would happen and you were right. I feel awful about it. I want the NSA to fight terrorism, but there has got to be a better way than this...

What are your thoughts as to why these specific Muslim-Americans were targeted?

In one 2005 document, intelligence community personnel are instructed how to properly format internal memos to justify FISA surveillance. In the place where the target’s real name would go, the memo offers a fake name as a placeholder: “Mohammed *******.”

Do we have children running this?

Mohammed *******??

Simply embarrassing.

 

[Slapdash]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse. All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's bad. It's very bad. I already changed my mind on this and want the whole thing shut down, as of several weeks ago (not that it matters what I think).You guys did tell me stuff like this would happen and you were right. I feel awful about it. I want the NSA to fight terrorism, but there has got to be a better way than this...

Good thing you were all in supporting the status-quo when Congress was trying to reign this in last year.

 

[Politician Spock]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse. All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's bad. It's very bad. I already changed my mind on this and want the whole thing shut down, as of several weeks ago (not that it matters what I think).You guys did tell me stuff like this would happen and you were right. I feel awful about it. I want the NSA to fight terrorism, but there has got to be a better way than this...

Good thing you were all in supporting the status-quo when Congress was trying to reign this in last year.

700+ posts worth in this thread alone. I'm glad to see he has come around to the truth, but I don't think he realizes just how damaging his overzealous efforts are here when he is wrong. Perhaps 700+ apology posts? Maybe then I'll consider fogiving him.

 

[Slapdash]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse. All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's bad. It's very bad. I already changed my mind on this and want the whole thing shut down, as of several weeks ago (not that it matters what I think).You guys did tell me stuff like this would happen and you were right. I feel awful about it. I want the NSA to fight terrorism, but there has got to be a better way than this...

Good thing you were all in supporting the status-quo when Congress was trying to reign this in last year.

700+ posts worth in this thread alone. I'm glad to see he has come around to the truth, but I don't think he realizes just how damaging his overzealous efforts are here when he is wrong. Perhaps 700+ apology posts? Maybe then I'll consider fogiving him.

Maybe he could at least call his "Great American Hero" of a senator

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse. All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's bad. It's very bad. I already changed my mind on this and want the whole thing shut down, as of several weeks ago (not that it matters what I think).You guys did tell me stuff like this would happen and you were right. I feel awful about it. I want the NSA to fight terrorism, but there has got to be a better way than this...

What are your thoughts as to why these specific Muslim-Americans were targeted?

In one 2005 document, intelligence community personnel are instructed how to properly format internal memos to justify FISA surveillance. In the place where the target’s real name would go, the memo offers a fake name as a placeholder: “Mohammed *******.”

Do we have children running this?

Mohammed *******??

Simply embarrassing.

No one wants to hear this on the left but this sounds a lot like the kind of bureaucratic incompetence that easily slides into corruption and political malfeasance and abuse as seen in the IRS.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They are too busy dealing with contraception and Brinks employee's owning guns.

ETA: as well as Lebron's Decision II

PRIORITIES

Yes because the NSA should be able to get your emails at work, seeing as how your company has no 4th Amendment protections.

I guess that would work for the IRS too, wouldn't it?

Yet:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-spirit-of-the-fourth-amendment-and-the-nsas-disregard-for-it/284498/

ETA - I misunderstood your point originally. Everyone jokes about this when talking about the IRS "losing" their emails. - Yeah I'm sure the NSA snooping in government agencies would have no political dangers, right? They are a military or quasi-military agency. How dangerous would it be if they were snooping into US government personnel's emails? How bad would that be? Edgar Hoover would absolutely salivate.

 

[tom22406]

Anybody even read the last article or even care?

I feel like we're at the point where we're beating a dead horse. All that's left is the "I told you so" part of it and doing that falls on Tim's deaf ears. so..........

It's bad. It's very bad. I already changed my mind on this and want the whole thing shut down, as of several weeks ago (not that it matters what I think).You guys did tell me stuff like this would happen and you were right. I feel awful about it. I want the NSA to fight terrorism, but there has got to be a better way than this...

What are your thoughts as to why these specific Muslim-Americans were targeted?

In one 2005 document, intelligence community personnel are instructed how to properly format internal memos to justify FISA surveillance. In the place where the target’s real name would go, the memo offers a fake name as a placeholder: “Mohammed *******.”

Do we have children running this?

Mohammed *******??

Simply embarrassing.

No one wants to hear this on the left but this sounds a lot like the kind of bureaucratic incompetence that easily slides into corruption and political malfeasance and abuse as seen in the IRS.

I don't view this as a left or right issue since both sides are guilty in this,I view this as the American citizens problem and unless we put our foot down it will only continue to carry on as normal.

I will let my voice be heard via phone calls and my vote(s)and my wish is others will do the same but it doesn't seem to even be a hot button issue since a vast majority believe this program keeps them safe.

 

[Ilov80s]

NSA Whistleblower says that total control of the population is the goal of the NSA. He says 80% of all calls and internet activity is being recorded and stored- not just metadata.

http://bit.ly/1jyG7NM

 

[Slapdash]

Snowden: NSA Employees Are Passing Around Nude Photos http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/snowden-nsa-employees-are-passing-around-nude-photos-20140717

 

[tom22406]

Snowden: NSA Employees Are Passing Around Nude Photos http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/snowden-nsa-employees-are-passing-around-nude-photos-20140717

I was just reading this interview yesterday and highly suggest either watching the video or reading the entire thing.

One part that caught my eye was this

Criticisms about the damage he caused

The fact that people know communications can be monitored does not stop people from communicating … because the only choices are to accept the risk of being monitored or to not communicate at all. And when we’re talking about things like terrorist cells, nuclear proliferators – these are organised cells. These are things an individual cannot do on their own. So if they abstain from communicating we’ve already won. If we’ve basically talked the terrorists out of using our modern communications networks, we have benefited in terms of security – we haven’t lost in terms of security.

[On claims he was weakening the democracy he professed trying to protect] What those intelligence officials are arguing is that democracy is unsustainable as a model, that the public can’t be entrusted to make those decisions, that we should give up on them and move to an authoritarian system of government. But I think the public, when we look at this independently and make our own decisions, we’re not swayed by these overblown claims of harm that are never backed up in the evidence. The question that these intelligence agencies are asking us is, do we want to live in a democracy where we may face some occasional risk from actual harm, which we cannot predict and we cannot protect ourselves from? Or would we rather live under a Chinese model or a Russian model where it’s a more controlled society, but it’s also less free?

The question is not what government surveillance programmes can the public know about, it’s a question of to what detail. We’ve seen all of these spy chiefs come out and say the atmosphere’s going to boil off … the world is going to end, the sky’s falling, and yet it hasn’t happened in any case at all. So the only people who are rubbing their hands with glee are the reformers who are seeing more and more evidence that the governments overreached here and are incapable of defending claims that they made again and again and again since these publications started.

I can tell you right now that in the wake of the last year there are still terrorists getting hauled up, there are still communications being intercepted. You know there are still successes in intelligence operations that are being carried out all around the world.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/-sp-edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-interview-transcript

 

[The Commish]

Snowden: NSA Employees Are Passing Around Nude Photos http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/snowden-nsa-employees-are-passing-around-nude-photos-20140717

I was just reading this interview yesterday and highly suggest either watching the video or reading the entire thing.

One part that caught my eye was this

Criticisms about the damage he caused

The fact that people know communications can be monitored does not stop people from communicating … because the only choices are to accept the risk of being monitored or to not communicate at all. And when we’re talking about things like terrorist cells, nuclear proliferators – these are organised cells. These are things an individual cannot do on their own. So if they abstain from communicating we’ve already won. If we’ve basically talked the terrorists out of using our modern communications networks, we have benefited in terms of security – we haven’t lost in terms of security.

[On claims he was weakening the democracy he professed trying to protect] What those intelligence officials are arguing is that democracy is unsustainable as a model, that the public can’t be entrusted to make those decisions, that we should give up on them and move to an authoritarian system of government. But I think the public, when we look at this independently and make our own decisions, we’re not swayed by these overblown claims of harm that are never backed up in the evidence. The question that these intelligence agencies are asking us is, do we want to live in a democracy where we may face some occasional risk from actual harm, which we cannot predict and we cannot protect ourselves from? Or would we rather live under a Chinese model or a Russian model where it’s a more controlled society, but it’s also less free?

The question is not what government surveillance programmes can the public know about, it’s a question of to what detail. We’ve seen all of these spy chiefs come out and say the atmosphere’s going to boil off … the world is going to end, the sky’s falling, and yet it hasn’t happened in any case at all. So the only people who are rubbing their hands with glee are the reformers who are seeing more and more evidence that the governments overreached here and are incapable of defending claims that they made again and again and again since these publications started.

I can tell you right now that in the wake of the last year there are still terrorists getting hauled up, there are still communications being intercepted. You know there are still successes in intelligence operations that are being carried out all around the world.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/-sp-edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-interview-transcript

I tend to agree here. I guess it depends on the industry one's in, but the uncovering of the NSA "spying" wasn't really a shock to me. I know what is in our TOS that people agree to and it's a lot. As a banking institution, you'd be surprised how much we know about you as soon as you log in. I extrapolate that out to an organization like the NSA and I can only assume they know whatever they want about me whenever they want to because I choose to put myself out there. I really do see both sides to the "monitoring" argument.

 

[tom22406]

Have no fears,Obama and the Senate are making progress on the bill that passed the House.

The Obama administration and Senate negotiators appear close to an agreement to strengthen legislation that would curtail the bulk collection of data on Americans.

In May, the House passed a watered-down version of a bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) to the cut back on the data collected by the National Security Agency and law enforcement agencies from phone calls, emails and other communications.

The administration raised last-minute objections to some provisions in the House bill, raising the ire of privacy groups. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, vowed to work on improvements to put some of the muscle back in the bill before a Senate vote.

According to an administration official familiar with the discussions, a compromise was reached over the weekend.


As part of the deal, the intelligence community agreed to a stricter definition of the search terms the NSA may use to seek data from telephone companies that might be useful in connecting the dots between known terrorists, said the official who would not be identified talking about ongoing negotiations.

Privacy advocates thought the definition for selection terms in the House bill created a loophole for NSA to continue its broad surveillance.

Intelligence officials also agreed to be more transparent about U.S. government snooping and consented to strengthening the role of a newly created public advocate, who would participate in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court proceedings, the official said.

Privacy advocates said negotiations took a turn for the better when the FBI and the Justice Department joined representatives from the NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the negotiations with Leahy’s staff, making it easier for all stakeholders in the administration to reach a consensus.
Leahy's office said Monday that negotiations are continuing and passage of a strengthened bill is possible this month.

“Sen. Leahy believes that Congress must act to protect Americans’ privacy without further delay,” his office said in a statement.

Quick passage will depend on whether the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders can agree to find time on the Senate floor next week for the altered proposal, according to administration and congressional sources.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-intelligence-data-collection-20140721-story.html

 

[Slapdash]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

 

[The Commish]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

 

[Slapdash]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

 

[Politician Spock]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

There are lots of things companies can do that the constitution does not allow the government to do. I don't understand the thought process of how those who understand that companies do it arrive at the conclussion that the government can do it too. The government can't. It's unconstitutional for the government to do it. The constitution however doesn't stop a bank, or an internet search engine company, or whoever from doing it.

 

[The Commish]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

I was talking about our TOS agreements that everyone acknowledges when they sign on to work with us. We don't have a TOS with the government and if we are shouting from the rooftops, I don't really fault them for listening. Now, when it comes to collection and retention I get a lot more conservative in my position. That's where I happen to draw the line.

 

[Slapdash]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

There are lots of things companies can do that the constitution does not allow the government to do. I don't understand the thought process of how those who understand that companies do it arrive at the conclussion that the government can do it too. The government can't. It's unconstitutional for the government to do it. The constitution however doesn't stop a bank, or an internet search engine company, or whoever from doing it.

The courts pretty much disagree so far though. If a company is collecting information they are compelled to share it with law enforcement . Therefore, I 'm not going let companies off the hook for being overly broad in the types of information they collect and track at a disaggregated level. The size and legal language within Terms of Service or Privacy Agreements are completely over the line. It is unrealistic to expect people to read them and their should be steps taken to make them unenforceable.

 

[Politician Spock]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

There are lots of things companies can do that the constitution does not allow the government to do. I don't understand the thought process of how those who understand that companies do it arrive at the conclussion that the government can do it too. The government can't. It's unconstitutional for the government to do it. The constitution however doesn't stop a bank, or an internet search engine company, or whoever from doing it.

The courts pretty much disagree so far though. If a company is collecting information they are compelled to share it with law enforcement . Therefore, I 'm not going let companies off the hook for being overly broad in the types of information they collect and track at a disaggregated level. The size and legal language within Terms of Service or Privacy Agreements are completely over the line. It is unrealistic to expect people to read them and their should be steps taken to make them unenforceable.

Yeah, companies could write somewhere in their TOS that you are agreeing to a membership in NAMBLA, and 99.9% of people would just click "agree" within two seconds of the agreement popping up on their screen. It amazes me that these types of agreements actually hold any weight in courtrooms.

 

[The Commish]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

There are lots of things companies can do that the constitution does not allow the government to do. I don't understand the thought process of how those who understand that companies do it arrive at the conclussion that the government can do it too. The government can't. It's unconstitutional for the government to do it. The constitution however doesn't stop a bank, or an internet search engine company, or whoever from doing it.

The courts pretty much disagree so far though. If a company is collecting information they are compelled to share it with law enforcement . Therefore, I 'm not going let companies off the hook for being overly broad in the types of information they collect and track at a disaggregated level. The size and legal language within Terms of Service or Privacy Agreements are completely over the line. It is unrealistic to expect people to read them and their should be steps taken to make them unenforceable.

This is true, but it all requires a warrant. I know we (my employer) don't do any handing over of data in a blind manner. Whether TOS or PAs are 'over the line' is a matter of opinion that will probably never be solved. For me, it's not any more unrealistic than expecting a person to read their mortgage agreement.

 

[tom22406]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

There are lots of things companies can do that the constitution does not allow the government to do. I don't understand the thought process of how those who understand that companies do it arrive at the conclussion that the government can do it too. The government can't. It's unconstitutional for the government to do it. The constitution however doesn't stop a bank, or an internet search engine company, or whoever from doing it.

The courts pretty much disagree so far though. If a company is collecting information they are compelled to share it with law enforcement . Therefore, I 'm not going let companies off the hook for being overly broad in the types of information they collect and track at a disaggregated level. The size and legal language within Terms of Service or Privacy Agreements are completely over the line. It is unrealistic to expect people to read them and their should be steps taken to make them unenforceable.

This is basically where I am on this but I don't agree this part.If I get into a contract with a company I'm damn sure gonna read the TOS and I would hope everybody else would as well(but highly unlikely as we all know).

 

[Slapdash]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

There are lots of things companies can do that the constitution does not allow the government to do. I don't understand the thought process of how those who understand that companies do it arrive at the conclussion that the government can do it too. The government can't. It's unconstitutional for the government to do it. The constitution however doesn't stop a bank, or an internet search engine company, or whoever from doing it.

The courts pretty much disagree so far though. If a company is collecting information they are compelled to share it with law enforcement . Therefore, I 'm not going let companies off the hook for being overly broad in the types of information they collect and track at a disaggregated level. The size and legal language within Terms of Service or Privacy Agreements are completely over the line. It is unrealistic to expect people to read them and their should be steps taken to make them unenforceable.

This is basically where I am on this but I don't agree this part.If I get into a contract with a company I'm damn sure gonna read the TOS and I would hope everybody else would as well(but highly unlikely as we all know).

I doubt you actually do. Reading all of the privacy policies you agree (implicitly or explicitly) to alone would take a month out of the year.

 

[tom22406]

The length and opacity of Terms of Service documents makes me question how much of a choice it really is.

It's the "legal" world we live in. There's such a fear of being sued, companies put anything and everything they can think of in there for CYA purposes. Regardless, the alternate "your TOS is too long and I didn't know" is kind of foolish too. When one turns on their computer they should assume that there are lots of people listening and behave as they see fit based on that.

I reject the notion that we should have to choose between using technology and having our rights apply. Unfortunately, that would take a government that actually views this forced choice as a problem instead of an opportunity.

There are lots of things companies can do that the constitution does not allow the government to do. I don't understand the thought process of how those who understand that companies do it arrive at the conclussion that the government can do it too. The government can't. It's unconstitutional for the government to do it. The constitution however doesn't stop a bank, or an internet search engine company, or whoever from doing it.

The courts pretty much disagree so far though. If a company is collecting information they are compelled to share it with law enforcement . Therefore, I 'm not going let companies off the hook for being overly broad in the types of information they collect and track at a disaggregated level. The size and legal language within Terms of Service or Privacy Agreements are completely over the line. It is unrealistic to expect people to read them and their should be steps taken to make them unenforceable.

This is basically where I am on this but I don't agree this part.If I get into a contract with a company I'm damn sure gonna read the TOS and I would hope everybody else would as well(but highly unlikely as we all know).

I doubt you actually do. Reading all of the privacy policies you agree (implicitly or explicitly) to alone would take a month out of the year.

I'm sure I haven't read them all over the years but the last few I always take the time to read through the banking and cell phone,cable company policies.I may not understand everything but I at least attempt to try.

 

[Ted Mullins]

Wired magazine interview with Snowden

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/

 

[Slapdash]

The government's biggest terrorist watchlist has more than a million names

 

[Slapdash]

NSA was responsible for 2012 Syrian internet blackout

 

[Politician Spock]

NSA was responsible for 2012 Syrian internet blackout

It was probably a Linksys. Those things are easy to brick.

 

[tom22406]

Wired magazine interview with Snowden

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/

Page 5 has this little gem

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/0914WIFFMANG001_sq1.png

 

[The Commish]

This made me laugh:

By a lopsided 293-to-123 tally, members vote to halt the agency’s practice of conducting warrantless searches of a vast database that contains millions of Americans’ emails and phone calls. “There’s no question Americans have become increasingly alarmed with the breadth of unwarranted government surveillance programs used to store and search their private data,” the Democratic and Republican sponsors announce in a joint statement. “By adopting this amendment, Congress can take a sure step toward shutting the back door on mass surveillance.”

Really? And how is Congress going to "know" that the NSA is complying? They didn't even know they were being spied on by the NSA. Nothing but blowing smoke up the US's collective ###. Sadly, it'll be enough for a lot of folks.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This made me laugh:

By a lopsided 293-to-123 tally, members vote to halt the agencys practice of conducting warrantless searches of a vast database that contains millions of Americans emails and phone calls. Theres no question Americans have become increasingly alarmed with the breadth of unwarranted government surveillance programs used to store and search their private data, the Democratic and Republican sponsors announce in a joint statement. By adopting this amendment, Congress can take a sure step toward shutting the back door on mass surveillance.

Really? And how is Congress going to "know" that the NSA is complying? They didn't even know they were being spied on by the NSA. Nothing but blowing smoke up the US's collective ###. Sadly, it'll be enough for a lot of folks.

Tim is already satisfied.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Snowden: NSA Employees Are Passing Around Nude Photos http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/snowden-nsa-employees-are-passing-around-nude-photos-20140717

Hard to fault people for this.

 

[tom22406]

This is why you can't trust the NSA. Ever.
New documents show the agency missing a massive number of violations. And that's before it set up a new program with virtually no oversight.
By Marcy Wheeler | August 22, 2014


The notion that the National Security Agency could police its own internet dragnet program with minimal oversight from a secret court has long drawn scoffs from observers. Now it appears that skepticism was completely justified, following the release of a bunch of documents on the program earlier this month by the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (ODNI), which came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Exhibit A is a comprehensive end-to-end report that the NSA conducted in late summer or early fall of 2009, which focused on the work the agency did in metadata collection and analysis to try and identify people emailing terrorist suspects.

The report described a number of violations that the NSA had cleaned up since the beginning of that year — including using automatic alerts that had not been authorized and giving the FBI and CIA direct access to a database of query results. It concluded the internet dragnet was in pretty good shape. "NSA has taken significant steps designed to eliminate the possibility of any future compliance issues," the last line of the report read, "and to ensure that mechanisms are in place to detect and respond quickly if any were to occur."

But just weeks later, the Department of Justice informed the FISA Court, which oversees the NSA program, that the NSA had been collecting impermissible categories of data — potentially including content — for all five years of the program's existence.

The Justice Department said the violation had been discovered by NSA's general counsel, which since a previous violation in 2004 had been required to do two spot checks of the data quarterly to make sure NSA had complied with FISC orders. But the general counsel had found the problem only after years of not finding it. The Justice Department later told the court that "virtually every" internet dragnet record "contains some metadata that was authorized for collection and some metadata that was not authorized for collection." In other words, in the more than 25 checks the NSA's general counsel should have done from 2004 to 2009, it never once found this unauthorized data.

The following year, Judge John Bates, then head of FISC, emphasized that the NSA had missed the unauthorized data in its comprehensive report. He noted "the extraordinary fact that NSA's end-to-end review overlooked unauthorized acquisitions that were documented in virtually every record of what was acquired." Bates went on, "t must be added that those responsible for conducting oversight at NSA failed to do so effectively."

Nevertheless, in the very same document, Bates would go on to authorize restarting the program (his colleague, Judge Reggie Walton, had shut it down after learning of the illegal collection in late 2009). Not only that: Bates's reauthorization permitted the NSA to collect all the data it had been unauthorized to collect before; expanded the number of NSA analysts who could access the data to pretty much anyone with training; unmoored the collection from specific switches more likely to carry terrorist traffic; and expanded the volume of collection by 11 to 24 times.

In other words, Bates decided it was a good idea to let those who, in his judgment, failed to effectively conduct oversight at the NSA to dramatically expand the program.

While a sketchy outline of this story was revealed when the government first released Bates's 2010 reauthorization memo last year, a clearer picture emerged following ODNI's document dump.

Those documents also show how lawyers from the Justice Department secretly told FISC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in 2004 that they couldn't get Congress to pass a law to expand the executive's spying authority — which they admitted was what the White House normally did when it came across a law it found too restrictive — because "seeking legislation would inevitably compromise the secrecy of the collection program the government wishes to undertake."

The documents show that when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2005 on programs authorized by the internet dragnet law, he made no mention of what the NSA was doing under it. They show how Judge Walton correctly guessed, in early 2009, that he might find the same violations with the internet dragnet as the Justice Department had previously disclosed about the NSA's phone-tapping program.

And of course, they show that roughly six months of close review of the internet dragnet program did not lead the NSA to discover — or if it did discover, to admit — that it had been illegally collecting data within the U.S. for five whole years. It took something else to get NSA to admit to that.

Clapper's office maintains that these documents demonstrate "the oversight regime of internal checks over the program." Perhaps, though they reflect favorably only on Walton's decision to shut the program down in 2009.

But there's a lot Clapper's office isn't saying. First, his office is hiding almost all the dates on these documents (it took matching these with many other public documents to come up with the estimates in this article). Perhaps that's to shield the government from liability for this illegal spying.

Also, ODNI claims that the FISC-authorized internet dragnet has been shut down. "As previously stated, this internet communications metadata bulk collection program has been discontinued." But during precisely the same weeks when NSA's general counsel was busy not finding the illegal data in virtually every internet dragnet record, NSA piloted a new program to permit its analysts to do the same kind of analysis on the metadata of U.S. persons collected under an executive order (Executive Order 12333). NSA expanded the program to all of NSA in early 2011, before NSA shut down the internet dragnet program.

That means there is a related dragnet program out there with nowhere near the level of oversight as the old one — the one that managed to compile five years of serious violations that the NSA never detected.

http://theweek.com/article/index/266785/this-is-why-you-cant-trust-the-nsa-ever

 

[Slapdash]

OOOF

 

[tom22406]

Good read here on how the NSA built it's own google

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/08/25/icreach-nsa-cia-secret-google-crisscross-proton/

One quote from it

Legal experts told The Intercept they were shocked to learn about the scale of the ICREACH system and are concerned that law enforcement authorities might use it for domestic investigations that are not related to terrorism.

“To me, this is extremely troublesome,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “The myth that metadata is just a bunch of numbers and is not as revealing as actual communications content was exploded long ago—this is a trove of incredibly sensitive information.”

Brian Owsley, a federal magistrate judge between 2005 and 2013, said he was alarmed that traditional law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the DEA were among those with access to the NSA’s surveillance troves.

Paging Tim

“This is not something that I think the government should be doing,” said Owsley, an assistant professor of law at Indiana Tech Law School. “Perhaps if information is useful in a specific case, they can get judicial authority to provide it to another agency. But there shouldn’t be this buddy-buddy system back-and-forth.”

 

[drummer]

Has tim-crow-chet bagged out of this thread? -

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/a-twisted-history-how-a-reagan-era-executive-order-led-to-mass-spying/

Smoke more weed tim. Seriously, smoke more weed.

 

[timschochet]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

 

[The Commish]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

It's his "trick".....don't stop the show!

 

[drummer]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

Months ago is too late. Pile-ons are deserved.

 

[drummer]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

It's his "trick".....don't stop the show!

Yeah, when an Ars Technica article is a "trick" here, it just makes you look bitter.

 

[The Commish]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

It's his "trick".....don't stop the show!

Yeah, when an Ars Technica article is a "trick" here, it just makes you look bitter.

good to know...but the "trick" here is your shtick....please continue.

 

[drummer]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

It's his "trick".....don't stop the show!

Yeah, when an Ars Technica article is a "trick" here, it just makes you look bitter.

good to know...but the "trick" here is your shtick....please continue.

There is a difference between a mark and a trick. Make up your mind on which one you are please.

 

[The Commish]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

It's his "trick".....don't stop the show!

Yeah, when an Ars Technica article is a "trick" here, it just makes you look bitter.

good to know...but the "trick" here is your shtick....please continue.

There is a difference between a mark and a trick. Make up your mind on which one you are please.

Back to regular scheduled programming...this is more like it

 

[drummer]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

It's his "trick".....don't stop the show!

Yeah, when an Ars Technica article is a "trick" here, it just makes you look bitter.

good to know...but the "trick" here is your shtick....please continue.

There is a difference between a mark and a trick. Make up your mind on which one you are please.

Back to regular scheduled programming...this is more like it

And what a way to show you're "above it all" with posts like this one.

 

[Politician Spock]

I reversed my position on this months ago. I was wrong; you guys were not. I was ignorant; you guys were not.

But by all means, continue to pile on.

If you were wrong for few pages and a handful of posts, I'd let it go.

But due to 600+ posts of your ignorance in this thread, there's at least a couple years of piling on justified here.

Perhaps that will make you think twice the next time you want to flood a thread with your ignorance. Probably not. But I hope.