Government Is Spying on Your Cell Phone Calls

Thanks Joe for this. I have been in the security business since 1988 and work closely with many people like him. All of this information is not new, its general information known about for years in this industry of system analysts.

But that's what makes no sense to me. All he seems to be saying is:

1) The NSA slurps all the Metadata about phone calls and (possibly) emails.
2) They can spy on foreigners
3) They can spy on Americans with appropriate legal authority.

This does not seem that surprising.

Then they have the scarily named "Boundless Informant", but all it does it count the metadata. It's just a database tool. The document is basically a rah-rah tech/process overview.

And now he's abandoned his job, his family, his girlfriend, and he's gone to live in Hong Kong.

It seems weird to me. I watched his full interview. Again, it seemed like a disproportionate act for what really just amounts to recording metadata, which I don't think has been considered illegal before.

I think this is not the huge story people think it is. I think Snowdon and the Guardian has overplayed the significance, and the rest of the media has got caught up. It's not the Pentagon Papers. It's not going to trigger a revolution. I would hope though that it actually gets a productive dialog going as to what the limits of data farming should be.
 
NSA files a report because of someone leaking their illegal activity and you think its bunk. Its now a part of public record and we can wait and see what comes of this. It is far from BUNK, its real!

I can't find one. You claim it is being reported in the media. Provide a link please.
 
Ok, I was ok until he started the "I will be gotten for this'. Sorry, I have heard that nonsense from too many folks that are more interested in attention, than in the truth.

I am not hearing him saying that they are 'LISTENING in'. just that they are collecting the info.

Woody, so for $500 you the contents of folks cell calls or just who they called? Big difference.
Many do not know how this works. The US has relied heavily on England, and they on us. For decades the two governments have declared they do not spy on their own citizens, and they don't, they spy on each others citizens and then share the intelligence exempting them from this claim. Since 911 everything has changed.
 
Many do not know how this works. The US has relied heavily on England, and they on us. For decades the two governments have declared they do not spy on their own citizens, and they don't, they spy on each others citizens and then share the intelligence exempting them from this claim. Since 911 everything has changed.

Do you have proof to support this claim?
 
Many do not know how this works. The US has relied heavily on England, and they on us. For decades the two governments have declared they do not spy on their own citizens, and they don't, they spy on each others citizens and then share the intelligence exempting them from this claim. Since 911 everything has changed.

So are you saying that before 9/11 if the government wanted to spy on a US citizen, they would get MI6 to do it for them?

That sounds like utter nonsense, but I'd be happy to review your evidence.

And how does it work now?
 
So because the Lame Stream media doesnt report it It must be Bunk ? Wow !

Woody claimed that there were media reports of the government listening to phone conversations. I could not find such reports and asked Woody to provide some links.
 
Woody claimed that there were media reports of the government listening to phone conversations. I could not find such reports and asked Woody to provide some links.
I heard that too but cant find any links . I don't doubt they were listening to some . The problem is were they listening to the Boston Bombers or too busy listening to their political enemies ? .
 
WARNING: I am going to unabashedly minimize the NSA Wistleblower's testimony and intentions....and offer some hypothesis.

Sounds like he saw the receiving end of intelligence flagged/deemed worth looking into, and likely on a daily basis.
Imagine a funnel with a filter at the bottom (the throat).
In my work as a painter, I filter paint this way.....nearly all the paint passes through the filter except the bits and pieces I am trying to collect.
In my case. the bits and pieces are what I don't want to keep. In NSA data filtering, the bits and pieces are what they want to keep, and examine.

Not all my clean and usable paint makes it through the filter...there's always a few drops of paint left clinging to the collected bits and pieces.....and this could be considered "paint filter error", an expected unavoidable factor.
In his job at the NSA, I can't imagine there not being any filter error (in fact he speaks of it). But because he was working daily with filtered bits and pieces + error.....for him, the error seemed either too large, or too consequential.
Without numbers put to the amount of error he saw, and their consequences of that error....I can't fully understand or agree with his assessment.
We also don't know if he felt any career anxiety, and wanted "out", as that is known to happen. Reasons could be financial, personal, or stress related. After all, if we believe is job description, he saw the worst of the worst.......and dealing with that daily, takes a strong individual.

The average career span of a Paramedic is 5 years. One reason why it is typically that short, is the daily stress of constantly rushing to every accident with injury, health emergency, car crash, and other blood and gut events. There are other reasons, but this is always one of the big ones.
It's a point-of-view situation. If you see problems on a daily basis, you will tend to put more importance and more significance on those problems.... because you see them daily. It's all to easy to begin to assume they affect the outside world (everybody else) unrealistically. in the way you see them. A gained pessimistic view is entirely possible, or becoming overly optimistic.

When filtered bits pop out of a computer it's either real data, or real error. It's likely to become a human's job to decipher error from the important bits. So if you are an analyst sitting at a desk every day, you'll see lots of error. With all that error staring at you, it would become very understandable to acquire the feeling that this error was acquired unfairly, especially that it made it all the way to your desk. Any normal person with a moral conscience might think this system is being unfair, and heaven-forbid you the analyst make an error by flagging it as not error. That's a heavy burden, and can lead to stress and anxiety.......enough so, that you won't do it anymore.
 
You know, if I feared my government as much as some folks do, I would high tail it for some other country. Thousands of folks research things like 'pressure cooker' bombs all the time, and the FBI doesn't show up at their door. The same is true with ricin and other things.

Recently, in fact before the Boston Bombing, I was reading a romance novel. The love interest woman was the widow of a Kiwi killed in Afghanistan by a 'pressure cooker' bomb. I wondered about it, knew it was a type of IED, but I wanted more info, so I Googled it. No FBI yet.

Writers, journalists and just interested readers will google such terms. HARMLESS and TOO many to track. And remember I Skype with folks that don't live in the US also.
 
You know, if I feared my government as much as some folks do, I would high tail it for some other country. Thousands of folks research things like 'pressure cooker' bombs all the time, and the FBI doesn't show up at their door. The same is true with ricin and other things.

Recently, in fact before the Boston Bombing, I was reading a romance novel. The love interest woman was the widow of a Kiwi killed in Afghanistan by a 'pressure cooker' bomb. I wondered about it, knew it was a type of IED, but I wanted more info, so I Googled it. No FBI yet.

Writers, journalists and just interested readers will google such terms. HARMLESS and TOO many to track. And remember I Skype with folks that don't live in the US also.
of course they leave them guys alone because the more destruction they cause the more everyone will cry for more security . They dont care about you or me just themselves and political power . More terrorism means bigger more intrusive government . You still dont get it ? you have too much faith in government . Were you like this when GW was President ?
 
Did you miss the information that this program was started by Pres George W. Bush? It was. There were things they did that I felt were wrong and also silly. Like demanding the entire checkout lists of libraries. Waste of time, another case of trying to drink from a fire hose.

One problem I see with the amount of even meta data, is that they have to be able to filter and find what they need. It would make sense that they get a lead, then look at the meta data to see if they need to keep looking.
 
of course they leave them guys alone because the more destruction they cause the more everyone will cry for more security . They dont care about you or me just themselves and political power . More terrorism means bigger more intrusive government . You still dont get it ? you have too much faith in government . Were you like this when GW was President ?

So Joe, you don't want more terrorism because it means a more intrusive gov't, yet you don't want big gov't to help prevent terrorism, which (according to the first part), could help prevent a bigger gov't.

??
 
So Joe, you don't want more terrorism because it means a more intrusive gov't, yet you don't want big gov't to help prevent terrorism, which (according to the first part), could help prevent a bigger gov't.

??
Nobody wants more terrorism but the government cant stop it . They've dropped the ball so many times and most terrorist they do catch are set up by the Government in the first place , Or they Ignore it as with the Ft hood shooting ( workplace shooting ? ) . No I'll take a real small government and deal with the terrorism . More people ar killed by gangbangers then Terrorism in America .
 
Did you miss the information that this program was started by Pres George W. Bush? It was. There were things they did that I felt were wrong and also silly. Like demanding the entire checkout lists of libraries. Waste of time, another case of trying to drink from a fire hose.

One problem I see with the amount of even meta data, is that they have to be able to filter and find what they need. It would make sense that they get a lead, then look at the meta data to see if they need to keep looking.
Yes I knew it stated with Bush Bush but Obama was supposed to be better then bush yet he expanded it ?
 
Nobody wants more terrorism but the government cant stop it . They've dropped the ball so many times and most terrorist they do catch are set up by the Government in the first place , Or they Ignore it as with the Ft hood shooting ( workplace shooting ? ) . No I'll take a real small government and deal with the terrorism .

You're leave yourself so much wiggle-room in explaining this, one can't help but think it's so that your ideas will fit in ........at least somewhere.
And that "somewhere" is basically "anything" and "everything".
 
If Pres Obama killed it, the folks like Joe would still complain and blame him for any terrorism that happened afterward. For the government it is a lose / lose proposition.

Actually very few folks are killed by gang bangers that aren't DEALING with those gangbangers. They are a threat to each other, not to folks outside their neighborhoods, unless you drive in to buy your dope, or hire a hooker, or buy cheap cigs, or bet illegally.

I live in one of the neighborhoods where they are close by, in fact I called 911, just last night to report gun shots. In spite of that, I have never been shot, nor my hubby, nor my pets, nor my house or car. My house or car have never been broken into either. I have had a couple of items I left out front walk off, a leaf rake and blue tarp.

I will tell you what scares me, is drunk drivers. If my car breaks down on the freeway, especially at night, I will do everything I can to get it to an off ramp.
 
If Pres Obama killed it, the folks like Joe would still complain and blame him for any terrorism that happened afterward. For the government it is a lose / lose proposition.

Actually very few folks are killed by gang bangers that aren't DEALING with those gangbangers. They are a threat to each other, not to folks outside their neighborhoods, unless you drive in to buy your dope, or hire a hooker, or buy cheap cigs, or bet illegally.

I live in one of the neighborhoods where they are close by, in fact I called 911, just last night to report gun shots. In spite of that, I have never been shot, nor my hubby, nor my pets, nor my house or car. My house or car have never been broken into either. I have had a couple of items I left out front walk off, a leaf rake and blue tarp.

I will tell you what scares me, is drunk drivers. If my car breaks down on the freeway, especially at night, I will do everything I can to get it to an off ramp.
Tell that to the bystanders in Chicago New York LA ECT , then add the body count from terrorism . Chicago Homicide Rate Already Outpacing 2012 Killings In First Week Of 2013
The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Ronald Reagan
Content from External Source

 
You're leave yourself so much wiggle-room in explaining this, one can't help but think it's so that your ideas will fit in ........at least somewhere.
And that "somewhere" is basically "anything" and "everything".
what wiggle room ? I want small government . thats it . I rather die a victim of terrorism then give any more power to our criminal corrupt government .
 
If Pres Obama killed it, the folks like Joe would still complain and blame him for any terrorism that happened afterward. For the government it is a lose / lose proposition.

Actually very few folks are killed by gang bangers that aren't DEALING with those gangbangers. They are a threat to each other, not to folks outside their neighborhoods, unless you drive in to buy your dope, or hire a hooker, or buy cheap cigs, or bet illegally.

I live in one of the neighborhoods where they are close by, in fact I called 911, just last night to report gun shots. In spite of that, I have never been shot, nor my hubby, nor my pets, nor my house or car. My house or car have never been broken into either. I have had a couple of items I left out front walk off, a leaf rake and blue tarp.

I will tell you what scares me, is drunk drivers. If my car breaks down on the freeway, especially at night, I will do everything I can to get it to an off ramp.
What about the terrorism that has happened under his watch that he didnt prevent ? He doesn't do shit he just campaigns on our dime and parties with his buddies in the Whitehouse . Manchurian Candidate .
 
Joe, we all know you dislike Pres Obama. It is is STILL the fact that MORE happened on Pres Bush's watch than has on Pres Obama's.

Remember the White House saying that 'no one considered flying planes into buildings"? Remember that being shown to be an outright untruth? I didn't the outrage from the right wing or the left wing, either.

Fox News lent a hand in the effort to revise history. In an interview with White House press spokesman Tony Fratto, Fox anchor Jon Scott claimed that, prior to 9/11, “nobody was thinking” that terrorists could fly planes into buildings as an act of terrorism. Fratto agreed:

SCOTT: Back to the 9/11 attacks, which happened after all pretty early in this president’s first term, I mean nobody was thinking that there’d be terrorists flying 767s into buildings at that point. …

FRATTO: That’s true. I mean, no one could have anticipated that kind of attack — or very few people.

n fact, intelligence analysts had been warning for some time that terrorists could hijack planes. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” The Clinton administration responded by convening its top counterterrorism experts and heightening security at airports around the nation.

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” The memo warned:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon,” and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking.

In response to that threat warning, the Bush administration did nothing. The 9/11 Commission reports, “We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.”
Content from External Source
 
Tell that to the bystanders in Chicago New York LA ECT , then add the body count from terrorism . Chicago Homicide Rate Already Outpacing 2012 Killings In First Week Of 2013
The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Ronald Reagan
Content from External Source


What are you suggesting Joe, that we ban guns?

:)

Seriously though, don't tell me your bottom line is the body count. We could fix that just by reducing the BAC limit to 0.02
 
It's weird, it's not really something that I lose sleep over. For example, if the government is going to listen to my calls, what would they do with it? For example, let's say I talked to my mother on my cell phone. We talk about various things of the everyday social life, such as getting apple pie for supper, and the government is hearing this. So what? What are they going with this information? probably nothing. Are they really going to come knock at your door because of the apple pie? And let's say you do talk smack about the president. Alex Jones does it everyday on Info Wars and on his YouTube channel. You don't see them come knocking at his door do you? And you probably won't, unless he decides to not pay his taxes or something.

In light of the walking-back of many claims by the media, it's true that what's come to light was mostly known to the public(at least the outlines of the program) and is largely a non-issue for most Americans. And yeah, this isn't really a conspiracy.

However, your argument seems to very similar to "if you've got nothing to hide, why do you care?". It's a hard one to argue against, and because most people fail to successfully counter it it's why privacy-eroding laws have enjoyed a lot of success in the post-9/11 world. I'd like to share some links that make a strong case as to why that line of thinking is dangerous, why privacy matters even if you've got nothing to hide:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

If Snowden was right about anything, it's that we're putting into place(well, it's largely already in place) a turn-key panopticon state - whether or not it's used for such right now. Granted, that's as equally the fault of the American consumer as it is the intelligence community...

EDIT: Even with metadata only, the conclusions that can be drawn are quite scary(particularly with multiple vast network graphs):

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
 
If Snowden was right about anything, it's that we're putting into place(well, it's largely already in place) a turn-key panopticon state - whether or not it's used for such right now.

Just waiting for another terrist event to trigger it, just about the time when people will need to be able to create more debt/money to keep this ridiculous economic system that the banksters have built going. (Even Obama probably can't expand the welfare state fast enough at this point... so you know what that means, the only way for our oligarchs to create money/debt is by warfare and usually the only way to create warfare is with false flags or trying to find WMDs* in people's underpants, etc.)



*Kind of ironic that Gaddafi thought that there was some type of safety in trying to give up his WMDs. But if someone has to go the way of the Dodo, it might as well be a dictator.
 
A satire of the whistle blowers: "It seems like we're building a police state... or somethin'."

Yes.. but according to official reports you're building something that no one would ever, ever use. (The fine print: just kidding)

If people got rid of the root of all evil or split it up and made psychopaths/banksters fight with each other more and so forth then most of these other problems would disappear on their own. But that's not happening. So meanwhile, Jamie Dimon gets new cuff links with the Presidential Seal of Approval on them and JP Morgan's food stamp business is booming, they're almost keeping up with Corrections Corporation of America. Given that nothing is changing under Obama and the Republicans aren't an option, expect more whistle blowers and more "debunkers" saying that actually everything is fine if you just study a dot* instead of connecting any dots like """""conspiracy theorists"""" do.

And... after all, everything will be fine until it isn't.

*I'm all for getting details within a bigger picture right, though.
 
But that's what makes no sense to me. All he seems to be saying is:

1) The NSA slurps all the Metadata about phone calls and (possibly) emails.

Your fear loop and ability to "connect the dots" doesn't seem to exist... or you don't give voice to it. Just an opinion. What would cause you to think something along these lines: "It seems like there's something wrong with our intelligence services these days." Or are they perfect?

This does not seem that surprising.

Simpler... what would seem surprising or cause you to care?

Then they have the scarily named "Boundless Informant",

Again, simpler... what would supposedly make you care or scared... perhaps a less scarily named program?

...but all it does it count the metadata. It's just a database tool.

Ironically, it's unlikely that any of these database tools and so forth are going to stop a single terrist attack (on the Left brained types that couldn't be vigilant if their life depended on it.) It didn't stop the Boston boys.

And now he's abandoned his job, his family, his girlfriend, and he's gone to live in Hong Kong.

All for nothing... I'd imagine, from what seems to be a "dot" perspective. But wouldn't Snowden be more familiar with the Big Picture?

It seems weird to me.

What I would call your "dot" perspective and consistent failure to see anything bigger than "dots" existing in a vacuum seems weird to me. Even if there was a big picture or the possibility of one (like Snowden alluded to based on things he can't disclose, etc.), apparently you might never be able to "connect the dots" to see it. Especially if it caused fear or looked like something a conspiracy theorist might say. (On a side note.. people can always atomize the "Big Picture" to avoid fear if that's a negative emotion for them instead of something more like the roller coaster ride that some conspiracy theorists like to entertain themselves with. A satire of some conspiracy theorists: "I just saw Hitler in my oatmeal! Run for your lives!!! Weee, everyone is running now... just what we need, more excitement!" Etc.)

It seems to be one of those Left/Right brain things. (You have to love the Left/Right political symbolism of it too though. Apparently "sheeple" literally walk to one side of the room or the other and begin to form herds based on it. Are you on the Right... or the Left?)

Some people may connect the dots, see images in everything and become fearful or angry about things too often... but there is an opposite error too, in people who never try to "connect the dots" and fail to engage in basic forms of pattern recognition. Do they fear, fear itself?

In any event, you seem to be saying that Snowden is connecting too many dots and seeing things too far down the road. I doubt it. And at least he's concerned/cares* about posterity... and the "big picture" and so on. He offers an important perspective to weigh and balance against other perspectives, regardless.

*He's never going to be invited to the Cremation of Care ceremonies held by the creators of war/hell and sacrificial holocausts now. Bummer.
 
Your fear loop and ability to connect any dots seems to be broken. Just an opinion.

Perhaps you could be more specific, as I think I'm connecting the dots just fine, and the term "fear loop" has no meaning to me.

I see the NSA pushing the boundaries of legality. I'm in favor of transparency. I hope that the current focus leads to clarification of the law and the implementation of strict safeguards to prevent warrantless spying.

I don't lack imagination. I understand the various range of scenarios that are being discussed. I've read and understood 1984.

I broadly agree with everything Bruce Schneier says below, although I separately disagree with him on how important the Snowdon revelations are. I think Snowdon is important, but more for how the story made people think, rather than the rather bland things he actually revealed.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/government_secr.html

The U.S. government is on a secrecy binge. It overclassifies more information than ever. And we learn, again and again, that our government regularly classifies things not because they need to be secret, but because their release would be embarrassing.Knowing how the government spies on us is important. Not only because so much of it is illegal -- or, to be as charitable as possible, based on novel interpretations of the law -- but because we have a right to know. Democracy requires an informed citizenry in order to function properly, and transparency and accountability are essential parts of that. That means knowing what our government is doing to us, in our name. That means knowing that the government is operating within the constraints of the law. Otherwise, we're living in a police state.

We need whistle-blowers.

Leaking information without getting caught is difficult. It's almost impossible to maintain privacy in the Internet Age. The WikiLeaks platform seems to have been secure -- Bradley Manning was caught not because of a technological flaw, but because someone he trusted betrayed him -- but the U.S. government seems to have successfully destroyed it as a platform. None of the spin-offs have risen to become viable yet. The New Yorker recently unveiled its Strongbox platform for leaking material, which is still new but looks good. This link contains the best advice on how to leak information to the press via phone, email, or the post office. The National Whistleblowers Center has a page on national-security whistle-blowers and their rights.

Leaking information is also very dangerous. The Obama Administration has embarked on a war onwhistle-blowers, pursuing them -- both legally and through intimidation -- further than any previous administration has done. Mark Klein, Thomas Drake, and William Binney have all been persecuted for exposing technical details of our surveillance state. Bradley Manning has been treated cruelly and inhumanly -- and possibly tortured -- for his more-indiscriminate leaking of State Department secrets.

The Obama Administration's actions against the Associated Press, its persecution of Julian Assange, and its unprecedented prosecution of Manning on charges of "aiding the enemy" demonstrate how far it's willing to go to intimidate whistle-blowers -- as well as the journalists who talk to them.

But whistle-blowing is vital, even more broadly than in government spying. It's necessary for good government, and to protect us from abuse of power.

We need details on the full extent of the FBI's spying capabilities. We don't know what information it routinely collects on American citizens, what extra information it collects on those on various watch lists, and what legal justifications it invokes for its actions. We don't know its plans for future data collection. We don't know what scandals and illegal actions -- either past or present -- are currently being covered up.

We also need information about what data the NSA gathers, either domestically or internationally. We don't know how much it collects surreptitiously, and how much it relies on arrangements with various companies. We don't know how much it uses password cracking to get at encrypted data, and how much it exploits existing system vulnerabilities. We don't know whether it deliberately inserts backdoors into systems it wants to monitor, either with or without the permission of the communications-system vendors.

And we need details about the sorts of analysis the organizations perform. We don't know what they quickly cull at the point of collection, and what they store for later analysis -- and how long they store it. We don't know what sort of database profiling they do, how extensive their CCTV and surveillance-drone analysis is, how much they perform behavioral analysis, or how extensively they trace friends of people on their watch lists.

We don't know how big the U.S. surveillance apparatus is today, either in terms of money and people or in terms of how many people are monitored or how much data is collected. Modern technology makes it possible to monitor vastly more people -- yesterday's NSA revelations demonstrate that they could easily surveil everyone -- than could ever be done manually.
Whistle-blowing is the moral response to immoral activity by those in power. What's important here are government programs and methods, not data about individuals. I understand I am asking for people to engage in illegal and dangerous behavior. Do it carefully and do it safely, but -- and I am talking directly to you, person working on one of these secret and probably illegal programs -- do it.

If you see something, say something. There are many people in the U.S. that will appreciate and admire you.

For the rest of us, we can help by protesting this war on whistle-blowers. We need to force our politicians not to punish them -- to investigate the abuses and not the messengers -- and to ensure that those unjustly persecuted can obtain redress.

Our government is putting its own self-interest ahead of the interests of the country. That needs to change.
Content from External Source
 
This is an interesting article.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/n...utiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

It turns out, the NSA PRISM story isn’t quite the bombshell that everyone said it was. Yes, there continues to be a serious cause for concern when it comes to government spying and overreach with its counter-terrorism efforts. But the reporting from Glenn Greenwald and the Washington Post has been shoddy and misleading.

We shouldn’t shrug off our weakened privacy as a merely a side effect of the digital age, either. We ought to fight to preserve as much of our personal information as possible. So if there’s any benefit to the NSA news, it’s to serve as a reminder that, yes, the government is serious about attaining information in its war on terrorism and that we should be aware of what’s going on — checking it when it gets out of control.

But with new contravening information emerging since the original stories were posted by Greenwald and the Washington Post, it’s clear that the reporting by each news outlet was filled with possibly agenda-driven speculation and key inaccuracies.

...

The real story appears to be much less controversial than the original alarming accusations. All of the companies involved have established legal procedures to respond to warrants from a law enforcement agency or a court. None of them appear to be participating with widespread surveillance.
Content from External Source
 
Another article that discusses the collection of info by the NSA..... and raises more questions...

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-how-well-us-knows-its-people.html?full=true

"Although privacy protection may not seem to be on the NSA's priority list, Clifton says he knows the organisation has people actively working on techniques which would let it analyse data effectively while not breaching privacy. "If they get too intrusive on the data people will be up in arms and they will lose access," he says. "If they protect privacy they can get more data. They view it as part of their mission." "
 
Another article that discusses the collection of info by the NSA..... and raises more questions...

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-how-well-us-knows-its-people.html?full=true

"Although privacy protection may not seem to be on the NSA's priority list, Clifton says he knows the organisation has people actively working on techniques which would let it analyse data effectively while not breaching privacy. "If they get too intrusive on the data people will be up in arms and they will lose access," he says. "If they protect privacy they can get more data. They view it as part of their mission." "

Well, that certainly sounds nice, but seeing as we(the people whose data is being inspected) don't know exactly what they're collecting, I'm not sure how "people will be up in arms and they will lose access".
 
Well, that certainly sounds nice, but seeing as we(the people whose data is being inspected) don't know exactly what they're collecting, I'm not sure how "people will be up in arms and they will lose access".

I don't think by "people" there he means "the people", just some specific people, like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Congress - the people who ultimate depend upon the approval of "the people" for their success, and work somewhat as proxies for "the people", as well as being comprise of individual people themselves.

Google, for example, have a vast interest in people thinking their data is secure. Of course they could lie about it, but it's a huge risk given how easy it would be for a leak about such a program to come out.

Google is people too. Lots of individual nice nerdy people who have become rich (or at least well paid) almost by accident, and really do seem to want to make the world a better place at the same time as making money. Giving the NSA direct access to their email and document servers would jeopardize everything they have and want.
 
I don't think by "people" there he means "the people", just some specific people, like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Congress - the people who ultimate depend upon the approval of "the people" for their success, and work somewhat as proxies for "the people", as well as being comprise of individual people themselves.

Google, for example, have a vast interest in people thinking their data is secure. Of course they could lie about it, but it's a huge risk given how easy it would be for a leak about such a program to come out.

Google is people too. Lots of individual nice nerdy people who have become rich (or at least well paid) almost by accident, and really do seem to want to make the world a better place at the same time as making money. Giving the NSA direct access to their email and document servers would jeopardize everything they have and want.

Oh yes, I don't think they're lying that there are some privacy-related projects being undertaken with the data. But the lack of transparency means to me that even the data providers don't know what's being done with the data. If even they are unaware of how the data is being used, how can anyone except those inside the intelligence community voice a legitimate concern about it? From my understanding, the providers have no insight into how the data is used other than making sure the retrieved data lines up with the warrant.
 
Oh yes, I don't think they're lying here that there are some privacy considerations being undertaken with the data. But the lack of transparency means to me that even the data providers don't know what's being done with the data. If even they are unaware of how the data is being used, how can anyone except those inside the intelligence community voice a legitimate concern about it? From my understanding, the providers have no insight into how the data is used other than making sure the retrieved data lines up with the warrant.

Well at that point it's out of their hands. The security of that data after that would need a different set of safeguards.

I think the current furor will help, as clear and enforced safeguards, firewalls, etc, are needed, and the current scrutiny will help push for those.
 
Another article that discusses the collection of info by the NSA..... and raises more questions...

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-how-well-us-knows-its-people.html?full=true

"Although privacy protection may not seem to be on the NSA's priority list, Clifton says he knows the organisation has people actively working on techniques which would let it analyse data effectively while not breaching privacy. "If they get too intrusive on the data people will be up in arms and they will lose access," he says. "If they protect privacy they can get more data. They view it as part of their mission." "


A good question would be what do people want. Should the government not even try to collect any information in order to try to prevent/solve terrorist attacks? If it's okay to collect some information, the question is what information is okay to collect. Do we draw the line at 'legality'? With all the data that is collected what would be permissible then? Should they government be permitted to look for patterns that might be indicative of suspicious activity or would that be considered 'profiling'? When Americans were polled about the government keeping a record of what phone numbers were dialed the majority of Americans were okay with that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/.../10/National-Politics/Polling/release_242.xml

The public's opinion is pretty fickle and it is unreasonable to expect that a government would decide what programs to implement based on public polling. There is no clear answer to where to draw the line between what is okay and what is not, I do not think anyone advocates 'always trust the government', but the other extreme of saying everything the government does is a lie/evil (which I have seen people claim) in my opinion is crossing over into 'something ain't right with that person' territory.
 
Joe, we all know you dislike Pres Obama. It is is STILL the fact that MORE happened on Pres Bush's watch than has on Pres Obama's.

Remember the White House saying that 'no one considered flying planes into buildings"? Remember that being shown to be an outright untruth? I didn't the outrage from the right wing or the left wing, either.

Fox News lent a hand in the effort to revise history. In an interview with White House press spokesman Tony Fratto, Fox anchor Jon Scott claimed that, prior to 9/11, “nobody was thinking” that terrorists could fly planes into buildings as an act of terrorism. Fratto agreed:

SCOTT: Back to the 9/11 attacks, which happened after all pretty early in this president’s first term, I mean nobody was thinking that there’d be terrorists flying 767s into buildings at that point. …

FRATTO: That’s true. I mean, no one could have anticipated that kind of attack — or very few people.

n fact, intelligence analysts had been warning for some time that terrorists could hijack planes. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” The Clinton administration responded by convening its top counterterrorism experts and heightening security at airports around the nation.

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” The memo warned:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon,” and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking.

In response to that threat warning, the Bush administration did nothing. The 9/11 Commission reports, “We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.”
Content from External Source
Yes I dislike Obama as well as Bush ,Clinton , Bush The lonegunman TV show aired pilot episod in March and in July 0f 2001.
 
A good question would be what do people want. Should the government not even try to collect any information in order to try to prevent/solve terrorist attacks? If it's okay to collect some information, the question is what information is okay to collect. Do we draw the line at 'legality'? With all the data that is collected what would be permissible then? Should they government be permitted to look for patterns that might be indicative of suspicious activity or would that be considered 'profiling'? When Americans were polled about the government keeping a record of what phone numbers were dialed the majority of Americans were okay with that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/.../10/National-Politics/Polling/release_242.xml

The public's opinion is pretty fickle and it is unreasonable to expect that a government would decide what programs to implement based on public polling. There is no clear answer to where to draw the line between what is okay and what is not, I do not think anyone advocates 'always trust the government', but the other extreme of saying everything the government does is a lie/evil (which I have seen people claim) in my opinion is crossing over into 'something ain't right with that person' territory.

I agree that surveillance is necessary to national security, and perhaps even these most recent revelations fall well within that scope. However, the oversight process is totally secretive and therefore boils down to "trust us, we're being thorough and preventing any abuse". From what I understand, the FISC is basically a rubber stamp process(either that or the requests are immaculate and they perfectly satisfy to court every time):

Consider this information from a U.S. Attorney General's Office report presented to Congress: Of the 1,789 applications seeking electronic surveillance submitted to the court in 2012 by the federal government, all but one was granted — 1,788. The one not granted was withdrawn by the NSA.

source
Content from External Source
I think the more valid concern here is that we've basically got a turnkey panopticon already in place. Even metadata alone allows very detailed conclusions to be drawn with a high degree of accuracy. All it takes is someone else at the reigns for seemingly benign data to be used against people. I very much doubt that these companies would stand up to the government if they were obligated to reveal more data with a less stringent process than today. Perhaps some would relocate overseas, but I don't see that happening for a significant number of them.
 
Joe Biden pipes in from the past:

Joe biden on NSA Wiretapping, privacy May 2006 CBS Harry Smith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T4EPYSt5Dk


MR. SMITH: Well, the president, though, said yesterday, we're not listening to the phone calls; we're just looking for patterns.

SEN. BIDEN: Harry, I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call you made, I'm able to determine every single person you talked to; I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive.

And the real question here is, what do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with al Qaeda? There's a whole deal when you talk about this kind of stuff where, under the law, they're supposed to demonstrate that they're getting rid of and not keeping any extraneous information that they pick up on wiretaps and/or pick up in sweeps like this. And the president's saying -- I think I wrote it down -- he said, this is not mining or trolling.

If it's true that 200 million American phone calls were monitored in terms of not listening to what they said but to whom they spoke and who spoke to them, I don't know; the Congress should investigate this.

MR. SMITH: Here's the other thing, though. You go all the way back to December and the warrantless wiretaps. The president said, "I have the authority. We went through this. The Congress gave me authority for this and we have this war on terror." You've got guys like Senator Jon Kyl say, complaining about this is nuts. We're at war here. How are we going to find these guys?

SEN. BIDEN: We have -- no one's arguing whether or not you have the right to go out and tap and do everything you need to do to track down al Qaeda. That's not the question here.

Years ago, Harry, I was one of those guys that co-sponsored the bill called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Everyone I've spoken to who's been briefed on this matter says that everything that they want to do to deal with al Qaeda is able to be done under FISA, and maybe with a small amendment to FISA.

But this idea that no court will review, no Congress will know, and we've got to trust the president and the vice president of the United States that they're doing the right thing, don't count me in on that.



Joe Gets it! Or, he got it. Maybe he's changed his mind now. Can't wait to find out!
 
I work as for an online game company, looking for folks that violate the rules. I can see some things about their accounts--basically the meta type data. When they were on and other things (I did sign a NDA for the job). I cannot see their accounts or their messages or any details. There are times that I report what looks to be a pattern that would indicate violations, but I can't prove it. The system administrators have more access, but even theirs is limited.

I look for patterns. Sometimes those patterns are enough for me to ban the account (s). Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes even the admins have to ask the company to check things.

I am quite sure that the government has a similar system, where lower level folks have limited access. The gross meta data is only going to be used if there is ANOTHER reason to look at that person.
 
of course they leave them guys alone because the more destruction they cause the more everyone will cry for more security . They dont care about you or me just themselves and political power . More terrorism means bigger more intrusive government . You still dont get it ? you have too much faith in government . Were you like this when GW was President ?

How can you sleep being that paranoid? You think the government is spying on everything we do, but not doing anything about it because if they PREVENT a bombing they won't be able to beef up security? That sounds logical to you?
 
Back
Top