You are being watched

[SciFiFisher]

It makes no sense because the criticism amounts to saying "Stop complaining about that thing that's being going on for decades but which you've only just learned about. Why didn't you complain about it thirty years ago when you still had no clue it was going on? Since it's been going on so long, you should shut up about it, even though you've only just begun to understand its true extent."

I'm sure you see the issue with that. Saying "You didn't care before" is disingenuous because people didn't know the specifics before. Moreover, even if they had, not complaining in the past is no reason that they should not complain now; something that is wrong is still wrong even if people don't speak against it for decades.

Yes, but the fact that government(s) have been spying on people extensively has been pretty common knowledge since President Nixon (or longer if you count J. Edgar Hoover).

Not to mention the precedent. If they haven't complained for decades the precedent has been established. Now, they want to kick up a fuss? They are like "well, I didn't realize that all that spying might include ME!"

[The Supreme Canuck]

So what? It's okay to do just because people haven't complained about it? There's no "precedent" in these matters: if you suddenly realize that something is wrong, you are allowed to complain about it. Loudly. "Precedent" doesn't come into it.

And hell, I wasn't around under Nixon, so I couldn't well have complained about that, could I?

Also, as I've pointed out, the particulars were not known until recently. It's hard to complain about something if you don't know how it impacts you.

Saying "You should have complained earlier, and now that you're doing it, it's too late" is a nice way to distract from what people are actually complaining about. Focus on who is complaining and when rather than the violations of privacy that are the actual substance of the complaints. It's a handy smokescreen.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Yes, but the fact that government(s) have been spying on people extensively has been pretty common knowledge since President Nixon (or longer if you count J. Edgar Hoover).

Not to mention the precedent. If they haven't complained for decades the precedent has been established. Now, they want to kick up a fuss? They are like "well, I didn't realize that all that spying might include ME!"

Well, yes and no.

Sure, all governments (and I'm sure that plenty of private organizations also do it internally, it's called AUDITING ) spy on whomever for whatever reason.

The thing is that up to relatively recent times (say 20-30 years), it was hard to do at a great scale, not only collecting the stuff, but actually analyzing it for whatever reason. Hell, lets take an example from the FBI public info page (the CIAand NSA public info pages do not show this, so all one can do is speculate): more than half the personnel at the FBI is composed of analysts and support personnel. My point is that even these days you need a lot of people looking at all the info collected.

What has changed with the Internet and a lot of other enabling technologies is that the scale of survelliance has increased quite a bit.

So, sure: Nixon spied on whomever he didn't like and so did Hoover, but because of the workload it was most probably focused on a relatively small number of subjects. Nowadays it's possible to routinely keep track of a lot lot more. (Yes virginia, there's also plenty of more stuff to snoop on as well these days). This stuff is been known for a number of years to people in IT who actually bothered to do something more than manage users and do backups Now, it seems that it just dawned on John Q. Public that this is normal.

Again, I'll summarize my position, It's understandable that that governments (not only the Big Bad Evil Imperiast Infidel Gringos' ) have to at some point do a lot of these things. However, at least once in a while it's necessary to remind them not to get too cavalier about it. As usual, it's hard to get the cold hard facts, many times not because the government is evil or stupid or a combination of both, but because it actually causes big operational problems on (presumably) legitimate surveillance operations, as Yosh has pointed out several times, and at least sometimes because: the surveillance organizations don't want to expose their intelligence (or worse) screw-ups.

Having said all that, I still don't like it one bit.

[brite]

I'm sure you see the issue with that. Saying "You didn't care before" is disingenuous because people didn't know the specifics before. Moreover, even if they had, not complaining in the past is no reason that they should not complain now; something that is wrong is still wrong even if people don't speak against it for decades.

People knew... It was expected. Especially during the Cold War... but then, it was more like Spy vs Spy. Us against Them.

Once 9/11 happened, the American public said to the government, "Make us safer!". So the government rolled out this really great idea (that they already had in place)... And made it bigger (because this is America and bigger is better!). And then we had contractors running it, and contractors vetting the contractors... and then we wonder why we have people like Mr Snowden.

Mr Snowden took the job with the NSA for the express purpose of bringing it down. He only worked there, what? Three, six months?? His credentials have turned out to be pretty bogus, his claims are inflated and the first thing that he does is flee the country.

People keep comparing him to the guy that released the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. Mr Ellsberg didn't flee the country, and in the end stood trial, though wasn't convicted. And he did work the system.

What is upsetting people is that all that screaming about keeping us safe... isn't really keeping us safe. The NSA, TSA and all that bullshit... only proves that the terrorists are winning. We are still terrified that they will come back. And they will... only because we have managed to keep pissing them off by invading their countries. (I am not going to get into the theological crap about the whole thing...)

We wanted to be safe. But we don't like HOW we are "being kept" safe. So now what? Well here's the deal... the current administration didn't implement PRISM. You can thank GW Bush for that. You can thank several prior administrations for putting the whole idea together, including the Clinton Administration. The Obama Administration didn't come up with the Patriot Act, which allows the NSA to spy on us.

We are being watched. Yup. Been happening for years. The next thing you know, they will start to encourage neighbors to start informing on neighbors, and children to start informing on parents...

Oh... wait....

[Sigma_Orionis]

OK, now things got nasty.

Security expert Schneier calls for more to reveal gov’t spying methods

As you know, I don't think much of Snowden, but Bruce Schneier is another matter altogether, he's a respected cryptographer and IT Security specialist. So if he's pissed off, I am paying attention.

Apparently, Schneier was amongst the people the Guardian contacted to analyze the stuff Snowden leaked from the NSA.

If the NSA is spending milliards (I refuse to use the word billion, a Billion is a million million in christian countries, Only you damned heathens use short scale ) of US$ in creating machines that can crack stuff like AES by brute force, it's a matter between you "damned yanks" and your "evil imperialist government" (your tax dollars at work and all that).

If the NSA is busy finding vulnerabilities in IT security protocols and standards, and not reporting what it finds so it can eavesdrop on the bad guys. NO, I don't like it, but well, I guess it's at least understandable.

HOWEVER. IF the NSA is actually forcing IT companies to install backdoors in their products, SCREW THE NSA. Thank you for planting vulnerabilities (that will be ALSO used by criminals) on those products that will also be used by those of us who are not terrorists.

[SciFiFisher]

OK, now things got nasty.


If the NSA is busy finding vulnerabilities in IT security protocols and standards, and not reporting what it finds so it can eavesdrop on the bad guys. NO, I don't like it, but well, I guess it's at least understandable.

HOWEVER. IF the NSA is actually forcing IT companies to install backdoors in their products, SCREW THE NSA. Thank you for planting vulnerabilities (that will be ALSO used by criminals) on those products that will also be used by those of us who are not terrorists.

I think the question about the NSA actually using back doors may be open to interpretation. On a scarier note is the fact that virtually every internet company doing business on the internet including Google and Microsoft seems to have caved and blithely provides the NSA and other security agencies with whatever they want. if that is the case who needs back doors?

IIRC the subject of back doors came up in the 1990's. This article on USA Today alludes to the fact that the initiative by the NSA and others was shot down. Or maybe they just went on quietly strong arming the internet into complying?

George Orwell was a prophet!

[Sigma_Orionis]

I think the question about the NSA actually using back doors may be open to interpretation. On a scarier note is the fact that virtually every internet company doing business on the internet including Google and Microsoft seems to have caved and blithely provides the NSA and other security agencies with whatever they want. if that is the case who needs back doors?

Google and M$ CLAIM they don't allow irrestricted access to their systems by the US government (notice that CLAIM is in uppercase ). Assuming it is false, it refers to their ONLINE services (gmail, Skype, Hotmail, etc). If the NSA has access to the Windows source code so they can find vulnerable spots where they can attack a machine, that falls under the second point of my rant.

HOWEVER, the backdoors that MIGHT be implemented in software products, go in in your PC and everyone else's (which means they theoretically eavesdrop you when doing stuff in your LOCAL computer that doesn't usually go through the internet), even worse, go INTO ALMOST EVERY GODDAMMED SERVER in the world (including of course the stuff I have in MY datacenter) THAT's much much worse (and not only FOR ME )

IIRC the subject of back doors came up in the 1990's. This article on USA Today alludes to the fact that the initiative by the NSA and others was shot down. Or maybe they just went on quietly strong arming the internet into complying?

George Orwell was a prophet!

The 1990s thing was the "Clipper Chip" affair, and yes it was promptly shot down, no comercial enterprise wanted anything to do with it.

If the NSA is still trying to influence NIST or International standards, they can try all the want. That's why there's plenty of good independent security specialists, to make a big ruckus ouf of things like that. THAT is why most good IT security solutions are "peer reviewed". Apparently they tried once with DUAL_EC_DRBG (for you civilians: it's a software specification to produce "random" numbers as unpredictably as possible, something very important when encrypting stuff) shortly after NIST published the standard in 2007, there were allegations that the NSA pressured to include backdoors in the standard, as a result NOBODY uses it (and apparently,from what I have read, the standard sucks moose as well).

[Cyborg Girl]

Here is one of the problems with this kind of mass surveillance.

It's a huge degree of power over other people, and power corrupts, no matter how honest its original intentions. I would bet "LOVEINT" is the tip of the iceberg.

[SciFiFisher]

Here is one of the problems with this kind of mass surveillance.

It's a huge degree of power over other people, and power corrupts, no matter how honest its original intentions. I would bet "LOVEINT" is the tip of the iceberg.

It's not too surprising. Love + Jealousy makes people do some pretty stupid stuff. Look at the case of the NASA scientist who was going to abduct her rival and do her in.

[Rommie]

So guys, there is now a bill to stop domestic surveillance.

Wonder if it'll actually get a vote though? And even if it did, the cynic in me says they'd just rename it a new secret program with a new secret court.

[SciFiFisher]

So guys, there is now a bill to stop domestic surveillance.

Wonder if it'll actually get a vote though? And even if it did, the cynic in me says they'd just rename it a new secret program with a new secret court.

Move the office off-shore and claim it's no longer domestic snooping.

[Cyborg Girl]

So, now that the bit about the NSA spying on our European friends is out, let's do a little thought experiment.

Say, purely for the sake of argument, that Uncle Sam develops a Soviet streak. Criticize the President, and off to an Alaskan gulag you go.

So now you have massive numbers of people who have posted compromising political opinions online. The government can find and punish all of them. But it gets better...

If you want to communicate to someone about what's going on, or try to warn them, or whatever, the information can be intercepted - be it email, phone (thanks to VoIP), or snail mail. So the government can find you and the recipient, and send you both off to your deaths in the frozen North. But it gets better...

Maybe you want to leave; fuck altruism, you just don't want to be tortured. Fear is a powerful motivator. But how do you get your travel documents? Mail, phone, fax, internet... All can be intercepted. And the government will be watching all of those avenues for people who want to leave. But it gets better...

Say you've somehow gotten out, or maybe you're already in a foreign country when the bad news comes in. You're home free! Except that the NSA also monitors other countries' domestic communications. And the US still has the biggest military and the biggest economy on the planet. A few threats, a few bribes, and off you are smuggled to the Alaskan gulags, with the local authorities merrily looking the other way.

Now, you might say this is all unlikely, because lots of people would have to be ethically compromised for it to happen. But again, fear is a powerful motivator. If people are scared shitless that they'll be discovered as traitors, tortured half to death, and shipped off to die in a labor camp, they will not be inclined to cause trouble.

Do you understand? In the current climate, most of us are probably feeling some of that fear already. The US isn't a police state - not yet - but it would be very easy for it to go that way, if a few bad eggs got into high places. Do you see why I, and a lot of others, have mixed feelings about this?

[FZR1KG]

Extreme paranoia?

[Cyborg Girl]

Well yeah, except that enforcing conformity through fear is basically how a dictatorship works. Right now the US is still more or less democratic, and more or less free. But the tools now exist to squash that freedom much more easily than before.

Or so I'd think...

Then again, this country hasn't been a free one for certain ethnic groups, for most of its history. So maybe the lack of freedom is just about to get more evenly distributed. One can always look on the bright side...

[SciFi Chick]

Look at it this way GJ. I'm not justifying it at all, but this is not new. This has been going on for decades. The only difference is that now we know it's going on instead of just suspecting it's going on. If it hasn't led to the outcome you're describing before, what is it about knowing that makes that outcome more likely?

[Rommie]

Look at it this way GJ. I'm not justifying it at all, but this is not new. This has been going on for decades. The only difference is that now we know it's going on instead of just suspecting it's going on. If it hasn't led to the outcome you're describing before, what is it about knowing that makes that outcome more likely?

Pretty much this. I'm not saying I support it but Jesus, I don't think it's an unusual thing for any government to spy as far as its reach can go. Governments will do this type of stuff because they can- I don't think many European states, if given the US's capabilities, would ignore the temptation, it's just they can't so they can feel superior.

Also for the record I had a discussion with my mom who grew up in the USSR about this and was surprised the naive Americans didn't think this was happening (I don't think the US government ever admitted to it, for example, but even though it was totally illegal they probably read at least some of your mail if you sent stuff to the USSR). But what she also said was it hasn't changed that if you really, truly want something to be private then gee, write it down on a piece of paper and hand it to the person, or find someone you trust to pass it on. It's how stuff used to work, and hell that's what Al Quaeda does today (one of the reasons it was so hard to track bin Laden, and why major companies rely on couriers for important details). Not saying it's as efficient as typing an email, but hell there is a price one has to compromise for if you truly want privacy.

So yeah, to echo FZ, extreme paranoia much?

[geonuc]

As long as we keep the Fourth Estate more or less free to act, we're not going Soviet any time soon. Plus, there's enough gun nuts in this country to overthrow the government if it gets too commie. Rest easy knowing that.

[Swift]

But the tools now exist to squash that freedom much more easily than before.

As SFC said, the tools were always there. Do you think dictatorships were invented just after the transistor? The technology has existed as far back as fire and the pointed stick.

The danger to our democracy is not from the NSA. The danger to our democracy are people like the Koch Brothers and similar who are trying to buy their way to theocracy, and have the money and patience to do it, and an electorate who is proud of their ignorance and has the memory and attention span of a knat. IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of a lot of this data harvesting stuff. It seems to have a serious problem with due process. But your talk of gulags sounds an aweful lot like the crazy stuff the Tea Party crazies say about Obama. You don't have to go all fantasy to find serious problems; you can start with gerrymandering and the overturn of the Voting Rights Act.

[Swift]

So, now that the bit about the NSA spying on our European friends is out, let's do a little thought experiment.

One other thing...

Again, it sounds like there was more than a bit of inappropriate behavior here. But our allies need to get over their high and mighty act too. I'm sure it plays well with their voters, but I do not for one minute think that they haven't been trying to spy on us as much as we were spying on them. Maybe we're just better at it?

[The Supreme Canuck]

So, now that the bit about the NSA spying on our European friends is out, let's do a little thought experiment.

One other thing...

Again, it sounds like there was more than a bit of inappropriate behavior here. But our allies need to get over their high and mighty act too. I'm sure it plays well with their voters, but I do not for one minute think that they haven't been trying to spy on us as much as we were spying on them. Maybe we're just better at it?

Yep. The Canadian government has been getting dinged hard the past couple of weeks for engaging in industrial espionage against the Brazilian government. Whoops. No one's a saint.

[FZR1KG]

Yep. The Canadian government has been getting dinged hard the past couple of weeks for engaging in industrial espionage against the Brazilian government. Whoops. No one's a saint.

Don't be so harsh on them. Everyone likes to get long look at a brazilian.

[SciFiFisher]

Yep. The Canadian government has been getting dinged hard the past couple of weeks for engaging in industrial espionage against the Brazilian government. Whoops. No one's a saint.

Don't be so harsh on them. Everyone likes to get long look at a brazilian.

Depends on who is sporting it

[geonuc]

The danger to our democracy is not from the NSA. The danger to our democracy are people like the Koch Brothers and similar who are trying to buy their way to theocracy, and have the money and patience to do it, and an electorate who is proud of their ignorance and has the memory and attention span of a knat. IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of a lot of this data harvesting stuff. It seems to have a serious problem with due process. But your talk of gulags sounds an aweful lot like the crazy stuff the Tea Party crazies say about Obama. You don't have to go all fantasy to find serious problems; you can start with gerrymandering and the overturn of the Voting Rights Act.

^^^^ What he said. Therein lies the danger.

[Sigma_Orionis]

I'm taking this one with a grain of salt

Snowden leaks: Google 'outraged' at alleged NSA hacking

[Cyborg Girl]

Umm dudes, I am not going Libertarian on you. Relax. I don't have it in for the President, and frankly I think the Tea Party people are idiots. "Going Soviet" is a turn of phrase; a police state could be based on any number of ideologies (and here it probably won't be based on Communism).

In other words, way to completely fucking miss the point.

But ask yourselves this, then. If the US went theocratic; and had the tools to find, expose, and punish anyone who wasn't a die-hard fundie Christian, you wouldn't want to live here, would you?

BTW

Plus, there's enough gun nuts in this country to overthrow the government if it gets too commie.

You've got it completely wrong. The gun nuts wouldn't fight off Commie death squads; they'd be recruitment fodder for Fascist death squads. Having a reservoir of fanatics with weapons training would suit a theocratic dictatorship just bloody fine.