PDA

View Full Version : Inevitable Thread About Prism Program


houghtam
06-06-2013, 06:13 PM
This is the thread for conservatives to bitch and moan about the Prism program which Obama masterminded in 2007.

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 06:22 PM
I was told the choice between Security and Liberty was a false choice. LOL

alkemical
06-06-2013, 10:15 PM
edited by dhs

Vegas_Bronco
06-06-2013, 11:06 PM
We use this at work...it's a marketing masterpiece.

cutthemdown
06-06-2013, 11:31 PM
it doesn't matter when what started. Obama promised change. He ran on change and bringing hope back to the people when it came to their govt. In that even liberals have to admit he has failed big time.

chadta
06-07-2013, 04:59 AM
it doesn't matter when what started. Obama promised change. He ran on change and bringing hope back to the people when it came to their govt. In that even liberals have to admit he has failed big time.

come on dood, things are changing you just dont see it yet

elsid13
06-07-2013, 05:09 AM
I know people are going excited and political spin is going to be overboard, but in reality it about some of your fellow Americans attempting to keep you safe. They were faced with a problem and very scary potential that there were individuals in country that were out to kill innocent people.

To solve that problem they turned to technology to solve that that problem, a major strategic and tactical advantage that we have over rest of the world. They used large scale data mining and big data techniques to notice patterns and outliers to narrow their focus and then go get legal authority to investigate. Something similar that Google, Amazon and large brick and mortar companies do all the time with our data lifestyles. (There is reason Google flashes certain ads to you)

This is how they caught the dude in Denver that was going to attempt to bomb the NYC subway system. The notice activity between a known terrorist email system and seldom used email account in the US. The NSA turned that information to the FBI and CIA to investigate and follow the legal process.

In world were your life is has unique data footprint, and anyone that has resources can build a profile of your life, this is loss of privacy you live with.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 07:16 AM
I know people are going excited and political spin is going to be overboard, but in reality it about some of your fellow Americans attempting to keep you safe. They were faced with a problem and very scary potential that there were individuals in country that were out to kill innocent people.

To solve that problem they turned to technology to solve that that problem, a major strategic and tactical advantage that we have over rest of the world. They used large scale data mining and big data techniques to notice patterns and outliers to narrow their focus and then go get legal authority to investigate. Something similar that Google, Amazon and large brick and mortar companies do all the time with our data lifestyles. (There is reason Google flashes certain ads to you)

This is how they caught the dude in Denver that was going to attempt to bomb the NYC subway system. The notice activity between a known terrorist email system and seldom used email account in the US. The NSA turned that information to the FBI and CIA to investigate and follow the legal process.

In world were your life is has unique data footprint, and anyone that has resources can build a profile of your life, this is loss of privacy you live with.

The 2006 Neocon convention called. They want their keynote speech back.

Anyway I've read this line a lot lately. That if you do something anyone anywhere can track then its the governments business to track all of it all the time. Combine this with the recent ****storm of abuses with the best government excuse being that its employees basically do whatever the hell they want and there's no longer any debate about whether this threatens civil liberty.

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2013, 09:02 AM
And on the 60th anniversary of the publication of 1984 tomorrow...how apropos. Whether you're a lib, conservative, both or neither, you'd best make the realization that you aren't as free as you may have thought.

When our government's web/net over its citizens makes China jealous, we've got a problem. Bush and Obama are identical, but then that's what some of us have been saying from the beginning and most of the others here have been disingenuously denying for years.

So what are you gonna do about it? Well, make sure to say hello to Big Brother in all your emails and phone calls, K?

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 09:11 AM
I know people are going excited and political spin is going to be overboard, but in reality it about some of your fellow Americans attempting to keep you safe. They were faced with a problem and very scary potential that there were individuals in country that were out to kill innocent people.

To solve that problem they turned to technology to solve that that problem, a major strategic and tactical advantage that we have over rest of the world. They used large scale data mining and big data techniques to notice patterns and outliers to narrow their focus and then go get legal authority to investigate. Something similar that Google, Amazon and large brick and mortar companies do all the time with our data lifestyles. (There is reason Google flashes certain ads to you)

This is how they caught the dude in Denver that was going to attempt to bomb the NYC subway system. The notice activity between a known terrorist email system and seldom used email account in the US. The NSA turned that information to the FBI and CIA to investigate and follow the legal process.

In world were your life is has unique data footprint, and anyone that has resources can build a profile of your life, this is loss of privacy you live with.

Do you admit how ominous and deadly this is? By a mere switch of emphasis, freedom could be crushed out.

alkemical
06-07-2013, 09:30 AM
I know people are going excited and political spin is going to be overboard, but in reality it about some of your fellow Americans attempting to keep you safe. They were faced with a problem and very scary potential that there were individuals in country that were out to kill innocent people.

To solve that problem they turned to technology to solve that that problem, a major strategic and tactical advantage that we have over rest of the world. They used large scale data mining and big data techniques to notice patterns and outliers to narrow their focus and then go get legal authority to investigate. Something similar that Google, Amazon and large brick and mortar companies do all the time with our data lifestyles. (There is reason Google flashes certain ads to you)

This is how they caught the dude in Denver that was going to attempt to bomb the NYC subway system. The notice activity between a known terrorist email system and seldom used email account in the US. The NSA turned that information to the FBI and CIA to investigate and follow the legal process.

In world were your life is has unique data footprint, and anyone that has resources can build a profile of your life, this is loss of privacy you live with.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milgram%27s_obedience_study

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 09:31 AM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milgram%27s_obedience_study

The "banality of evil"...

chadta
06-07-2013, 09:59 AM
Why is it that the constitution is a living thing that protects emails, phones calls and texts, yet the 2nd amendment only means muskets ?

Obushma
06-07-2013, 10:04 AM
I know people are going excited and political spin is going to be overboard, but in reality it about some of your fellow Americans attempting to keep you safe. They were faced with a problem and very scary potential that there were individuals in country that were out to kill innocent people.

To solve that problem they turned to technology to solve that that problem, a major strategic and tactical advantage that we have over rest of the world. They used large scale data mining and big data techniques to notice patterns and outliers to narrow their focus and then go get legal authority to investigate. Something similar that Google, Amazon and large brick and mortar companies do all the time with our data lifestyles. (There is reason Google flashes certain ads to you)

This is how they caught the dude in Denver that was going to attempt to bomb the NYC subway system. The notice activity between a known terrorist email system and seldom used email account in the US. The NSA turned that information to the FBI and CIA to investigate and follow the legal process.

In world were your life is has unique data footprint, and anyone that has resources can build a profile of your life, this is loss of privacy you live with.

**** you, you are a jack boot Polock, not even an American. Elsid's ancestors were pulling Jews out of homes on lists made like these ones, of course he likes it.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 10:14 AM
Do you admit how ominous and deadly this is? By a mere switch of emphasis, freedom could be crushed out.

It's been infuriating to read some of the Bush-era apologizers coming out and saying how the policy itself isn't the scandal, just Obama's hypocrisy about it all. Essentially they're saying that the program is OK, so long as you can trust the guy in charge of it.

But that's total bull****. The entire bill of rights was written for defense against the guy you couldn't trust. Essentially they're using the same argument many use against the 2nd amendment in order to defend this intrusion.

And the scale of this is mindboggling. Virtually all Phone records. Major Networks. Financial Transactions. If this doesn't enrage the American People to some kind of action, there's little hope left for any of us.

houghtam
06-07-2013, 10:22 AM
What I don't understand is the surprise here. I mean, yes it's deplorable that our government has the ability to keep tabs on us, but...have we not been assuming this capability for years?

Let's forget about the fact that this has technically been in place since 2007. My brothers and a few friends and I have been playing games like Gulf Strike, Seventh Fleet, A Line in the Sand and a bunch of other Middle East military and political strategy games via email and bulletin boards since the early 90s. There was a lot of talk about jihad, the Muslim brotherhood, revolution, etc. and we always joked that we were on some list somewhere because of our topic of discussion.

That was 20 years ago.

I'm not saying I'm satisfied, and I'm not saying I support the police state. But come on guys, really? Why feign surprise at something anyone with half a brain has known has been going on for years?

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 10:25 AM
Why is it that the constitution is a living thing that protects emails, phones calls and texts, yet the 2nd amendment only means muskets ?

Good point. Touche! :thumbs:

I think the main point I have about guns is that I'm worried about arming people who are stupid enough to follow empty headed ideologues like Bachmann and Palin while sucking up the insane rants of bozos like Glenn Beck. See the problem there?

It's fine to imagine upstanding, well educated and involved citizens owning firearms as a bulwark against tyranny. It's another thing when you're arming morons. ;D

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2013, 10:27 AM
Obama: "I don't welcome leaks, because there's a reason why these programs are classified."

Two seconds earlier: "I welcome this debate."


If he's up for a debate, how is that possible with a secret program, exactly?

Schmuck.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 11:03 AM
Obama: "I don't welcome leaks, because there's a reason why these programs are classified."

Two seconds earlier: "I welcome this debate."


If he's up for a debate, how is that possible with a secret program, exactly?

Schmuck.

"The war on Terror is Over. Now I'm just collecting all your **** for fun" LOL

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 11:05 AM
It's fine to imagine upstanding, well educated and involved citizens owning firearms as a bulwark against tyranny. It's another thing when you're arming morons. ;D

This is exactly how we think every time we send the federal government out with a new regulatory mandate. :)

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 11:43 AM
This is exactly how we think every time we send the federal government out with a new regulatory mandate. :)

All you've got to do is read the news every day. Some of these people aren't competent enough to operate a screwdriver. And we're giving them AKs. :rofl:

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 11:49 AM
All you've got to do is read the news every day. Some of these people aren't competent enough to operate a screwdriver. And we're giving them AKs. :rofl:

And federal jobs.

Rohirrim
06-07-2013, 11:57 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GhxqIITtTtU?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2013, 12:01 PM
Obama: I'm not saying 'just trust us on this', but trust us on this...or we're gonna have some problems.
Translation: STFU, get in line, and don't raise a fuss or YOU will have problems of the IRS variety (wink, wink, nod, nod). Pray we don't encroach on you regular folk anymore than we already have:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ibc6QSV5ftw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2013, 12:06 PM
To inject some humor:

Patrick Stewart ‏@SirPatStew 1h

I should have never switched to Verizon. #NSA

attached photo to tweet:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMLCvrhCMAEhPVE.jpg

Pony Boy
06-07-2013, 12:59 PM
The only real surprise is that any of us are surprised by this and next will be the collection of your DNA when you register to vote or apply for a driver’s license.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2013, 01:35 PM
The only real surprise is that any of us are surprised by this and next will be the collection of your DNA when you register to vote or apply for a driver’s license unless you're an illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

FIFY

Fedaykin
06-07-2013, 01:59 PM
This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

has simply been replaced since people, both good and bad, now willingly give out much more interesting details about lives as a matter of "social networking".

alkemical
06-07-2013, 02:00 PM
http://www.att.com/shop/apps/isis-mobile-wallet.html

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 02:17 PM
http://www.att.com/shop/apps/isis-mobile-wallet.html

Definitely makes you rethink this whole cloud experiment completely. Mind boggling when you get into the implications of this. I would've never thought they could've pulled something like this off on this scale with so many companies in tow, without the details leaking out (quickly)

How were so many people involved without someone leaking what they were doing?

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2013, 02:39 PM
The only real surprise is that any of us are surprised by this and next will be the collection of your DNA when you register to vote or apply for a driver’s license.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data


So if Prism is so good/effective, why was Benghazi blamed on an internet video, again?

gyldenlove
06-07-2013, 03:12 PM
So if Prism is so good/effective, why was Benghazi blamed on an internet video, again?

These monitoring systems do nothing beneficial at all. The amount of data these programs collect if they collect efficiently is so outrageous that no agency could ever monitor it, much less draw any useful conclusions about anything. They may be able to go back after the fact and use this information to implicate others, but it has no role in prevention.

Sadly, the one thing that is all too true about security is that nobody knows how to do it. They spend billions on backscatter and millimetre scanners and they didn't do anything. They spend billions on monitoring and it doesn't help. They spend billions hiring 10s of thousands of DHS agents and they don't help. You would be surprised if you knew how many of the databases with electronic surveillance data are never ever used because the programs that were designed for them are no longer in use or do not actually work.

Taco John
06-07-2013, 06:37 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ibc6QSV5ftw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

While I'm no fan of Obama, it's painful to see a US president crashing and burning so miserably. Every time he talks, you can almost see the air escaping and his presidency deflating.

Taco John
06-07-2013, 06:38 PM
Definitely makes you rethink this whole cloud experiment completely. Mind boggling when you get into the implications of this. I would've never thought they could've pulled something like this off on this scale with so many companies in tow, without the details leaking out (quickly)

How were so many people involved without someone leaking what they were doing?

Fear is a powerful motivator.

W*GS
06-07-2013, 10:25 PM
**** you, you are a jack boot Polock, not even an American. Elsid's ancestors were pulling Jews out of homes on lists made like these ones, of course he likes it.

I think it's time for you to take an involuntary vacation, scumbag.

cutthemdown
06-08-2013, 01:59 AM
Dems may get killed in midterms over this. Talk about fumbling the start of your first term.

Taco John
06-08-2013, 02:48 AM
Dems may get killed in midterms over this. Talk about fumbling the start of your first term.

I think a lot of people are going to answer at the ballot box for this on both sides.

elsid13
06-08-2013, 04:54 AM
So if Prism is so good/effective, why was Benghazi blamed on an internet video, again?

The program was designed to solve particular risk. It's not IC solution to solve all threats.

BroncoBeavis
06-08-2013, 08:34 AM
The program was designed to solve particular risk. It's not IC solution to solve all threats.

Ahhhhh. So horning in on the financial transactions, credit ratings, phone logs, emails, social media interactions, and chat sessions of every American is just one little piece of the puzzle.

I want no part of this. It is tyranny.

elsid13
06-08-2013, 09:28 AM
Ahhhhh. So horning in on the financial transactions, credit ratings, phone logs, emails, social media interactions, and chat sessions of every American is just one little piece of the puzzle.

I want no part of this. It is tyranny.

You do realize that already happening. The private sector is already done it to you.

ant1999e
06-08-2013, 09:58 AM
You do realize that already happening. The private sector is already done it to you.

Well then that makes it all ok. Why didn't you say that in the first place.

BroncoBeavis
06-08-2013, 10:02 AM
You do realize that already happening. The private sector is already done it to you.

So because 10 different companies can do little chunks of this its OK for the government (with complete power over your freedoms mind you) to do all of it all at once.

Besides, if I don't think Google adequately respects my privacy, I could go to a different company. Or even set up some of my own services. But when the government reaches across telcos and big data and ISPs and financial institutions? There's nothing you can do to maintain your privacy. Short of going off grid and living hermit style.

I'm surprised there's anyone out there willing to defend this. Its been disappointing to see people on both sides of the aisle do so. There needs to be a third way forged out of this mess.

houghtam
06-08-2013, 11:23 AM
So because 10 different companies can do little chunks of this its OK for the government (with complete power over your freedoms mind you) to do all of it all at once.

Besides, if I don't think Google adequately respects my privacy, I could go to a different company. Or even set up some of my own services. But when the government reaches across telcos and big data and ISPs and financial institutions? There's nothing you can do to maintain your privacy. Short of going off grid and living hermit style.

I'm surprised there's anyone out there willing to defend this. Its been disappointing to see people on both sides of the aisle do so. There needs to be a third way forged out of this mess.

I have yet to see anyone "defend" it. I see a lot of people who are unable to wrap their minds around the surprise demonstrated by people who somehow didn't know or suspect this has been going on for a long time.

(Edit: After re-reading your post, I suspect the bolded part is referring to legislators. I thought you were referring to people on the board.)

Fedaykin
06-08-2013, 03:35 PM
So because 10 different companies can do little chunks of this its OK for the government (with complete power over your freedoms mind you) to do all of it all at once.

Besides, if I don't think Google adequately respects my privacy, I could go to a different company. Or even set up some of my own services. But when the government reaches across telcos and big data and ISPs and financial institutions? There's nothing you can do to maintain your privacy. Short of going off grid and living hermit style.

I'm surprised there's anyone out there willing to defend this. Its been disappointing to see people on both sides of the aisle do so. There needs to be a third way forged out of this mess.

Everything you do on the internet is tracked and analyzed by private companies. No matter what services or providers you use. Search results (most "alternative" search providers, like yahoo, simply rebrand Google and/or Bing), ad tracking, traffic analysis by your ISP to "look for pirates" for the **AA, honeypots by the same, DNS query logging, etc.

On the internet YOU are the product being sold. Period. Even here on the Mane.

BroncoBeavis
06-08-2013, 04:55 PM
Everything you do on the internet is tracked and analyzed by private companies. No matter what services or providers you use. Search results (most "alternative" search providers, like yahoo, simply rebrand Google and/or Bing), ad tracking, traffic analysis by your ISP to "look for pirates" for the **AA, honeypots by the same, DNS query logging, etc.

On the internet YOU are the product being sold. Period. Even here on the Mane.

I'm more than aware of what's possible, as I said, company by company. But Facebook doesn't go out of its way to share user info with Google. Or Comcast. None of them likely have any idea what goes on inside your banking account. Or who you called from your landline last night. Or what were in those bachelor party photos you 'privately' shared on Flickr.

Combine all of that, with the click of a mouse, under the authority of a group of people who have a perpetual vested interest in suppressing and silencing nearly half of the voting population.

What you're missing is that yes, if your government really really wanted to find all of this out about you, they could do it. But you and I (under the 'old' system) really weren't worth the amount of effort and fuss that would've required. Under Prism, this could be taken care of for you and a million of your buddies with a trivial amount of effort.

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/06/06/the-broadband-empire-and-the-game-of-drones/

Excellent read, if you have any interest. And some great questions asked. Why is all of this leaking out now? Have some of the insiders seen enough that they're starting to realize how far this leads, and they're getting cold feet?

Taco John
06-08-2013, 08:48 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3ux1hpLvqMw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
06-08-2013, 09:11 PM
[...]

The only thing good about Shia's "Transformers" movies was Megan Fox.

I expected better from you, TJ - relying on a 2nd-tier movie personality to make your point. No wonder libertarians are a joke.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-08-2013, 10:19 PM
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SliRJO8vqD8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Broncenstein
06-08-2013, 10:25 PM
"This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not! There are no shortcuts to protecting America."

-- Barak Obama, 2007

cutthemdown
06-09-2013, 01:01 AM
It's funny watching liberals try to keep saying things like Bush did it also, Bush did it first, Bush was worst, this far after he has been gone. Jesus Christ Obama will be 1 yr from leaving office and liberals will be like holy **** Obamas over with and we spent the whole time just trying to convince ourselves he wasn't that bad. Meanwhile Obama is like J Edgar Hoover, Nixon rolled up together in a blunt. Totally into nepotism, taking away freedoms of those that think different then him, and doing whatever it takes to silence his critics and plug any leaks that may occur.

Had fast and furious, Benghazzi, Irs, NSA, AP news scandals all hit a repub President these threads would be much different from our liberal friends on the board. They would be all over it like Clinton on an intern.

elsid13
06-09-2013, 10:03 AM
You can not have both ways. Two months ago you were bitching that Federal Government didn't do enough to prevent the Boston Marathon Bombers by being more invasive then what this program does.

And yes private companies share and resell your information all the time. In fact there are three to four companies in the US who sole business model is collect and analyze this big data then sell that information back to retailers and businesses. 60 Minutes had a great piece on them 3 to 4 years ago.

For this program, is was briefed and approved program that both Senate Intelligence Committee and House Select Committee on Intelligence had oversight on it.

elsid13
06-09-2013, 10:43 AM
I couldn't find the right story but this one is worth watching. It's only 13 minutes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147158n

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 11:44 AM
You can not have both ways. Two months ago you were b****ing that Federal Government didn't do enough to prevent the Boston Marathon Bombers by being more invasive then what this program does.

And yes private companies share and resell your information all the time. In fact there are three to four companies in the US who sole business model is collect and analyze this big data then sell that information back to retailers and businesses. 60 Minutes had a great piece on them 3 to 4 years ago.

For this program, is was briefed and approved program that both Senate Intelligence Committee and House Select Committee on Intelligence had oversight on it.

Yeah great example. Of how the government can gather all this info and be absolutely useless to do anything productive with it. You do realize this program was already in place. Oh and the Ruskies told us to watch out for these guys but apparently with both prior warning and all this surveillance they were still unable to connect any dots.

So what use was setting aside everyone's 4th Amendment rights?

And sorry but Google can't sell your emails or buy your phone records. And if they did you'd call it criminal.

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 11:52 AM
I'm more than aware of what's possible,

you say this....


as I said, company by company. But Facebook doesn't go out of its way to share user info with Google. Or Comcast. None of them likely have any idea what goes on inside your banking account. Or who you called from your landline last night. Or what were in those bachelor party photos you 'privately' shared on Flickr.


And then demonstrate that you are actually quite clueless (big surprise there!). Who do you think Google's, Facebook's, Microsoft's, etc. biggest clients are? They all sell their information to the same data mining companies AND each other. That's how they make their money.

Companies want a complete picture of you just as much as the government -- and they are likely a whole lot better at it than the government.



Combine all of that, with the click of a mouse, under the authority of a group of people who have a perpetual vested interest in suppressing and silencing nearly half of the voting population.


That's been the case for decades my ignorant fiend. Again, see ECHELON. The only change is they now don't have to work as hard to get the data, as people willingly supply it now.


What you're missing is that yes, if your government really really wanted to find all of this out about you, they could do it. But you and I (under the 'old' system) really weren't worth the amount of effort and fuss that would've required. Under Prism, this could be taken care of for you and a million of your buddies with a trivial amount of effort.


Actually, in many ways collecting data this was is more difficult. Ever tried to build a useful database to store and sift through trillions of data points?

This system came online in 2007. No doubt it was in development for a long, long time before that.


Excellent read, if you have any interest. And some great questions asked. Why is all of this leaking out now? Have some of the insiders seen enough that they're starting to realize how far this leads, and they're getting cold feet?

It's 'leaking' now because certain interests find it politically useful. It's no secret that the government is doing this. They have been for decades, and 12 years ago they came right out and said they were (see: PATRIOT Act), and nearly everyone was quite happy for it because it was "saving them from the evil Moooooslims!).

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 12:00 PM
And sorry but Google can't sell your emails or buy your phone records. And if they did you'd call it criminal.

Who on this forum are you imagining is supporting this?

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 12:06 PM
you say this....



And then demonstrate that you are actually quite clueless (big surprise there!). Who do you think Google's, Facebook's, Microsoft's, etc. biggest clients are? They all sell their information to the same data mining companies AND each other. That's how they make their money.

Bull****. Facebook makes money by knowing things about you other people don't know. They sell bits and chunks of it to people with a way to earn a return (from you) in response to what they've learned. At the end of the day their models usually have to provide you some kind of value for your information to be worth anything to them.

But Facebook does not just sell it's database to Google. And Google has no interest in sharing everything it knows about you with Facebook. Because they're competitors and their control of that information is their whole business.

Oh and, again, if you don't like what a company does with your info, you usually have alternatives. Not true with your all seeing government.

It's 'leaking' now because certain interests find it politically useful. It's no secret that the government is doing this. They have been for decades, and 12 years ago they came right out and said they were (see: PATRIOT Act), and nearly everyone was quite happy for it because it was "saving them from the evil Moooooslims!).yawn

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 12:09 PM
Who on this forum are you imagining is supporting this?

Uh, didn't you just read the dude tell me that it was either this, or more Boston Marathon bombings? LOL

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 12:17 PM
Uh, didn't you just read the dude tell me that it was either this, or more Boston Marathon bombings? LOL

Work on your reading comprehension. He was pointing out the hypocrisy not throwing support.

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 12:31 PM
Work on your reading comprehension. He was pointing out the hypocrisy not throwing support.

What's the hypocrisy. I never blamed the government for the Boston incident. Violence like that is inevitable in a free society.

The only thing Boston proves is that Prism is about gaining control over Americans more so than terrorists.

If you want to see hypocrisy....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1511599#.UbTI-5wQVh4

Memories, like the corner of my mind....

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 12:39 PM
Bull****. Facebook makes money by knowing things about you other people don't know. They sell bits and chunks of it to people with a way to earn a return (from you) in response to what they've learned. At the end of the day their models usually have to provide you some kind of value for your information to be worth anything to them.

But Facebook does not just sell it's database to Google. And Google has no interest in sharing everything it knows about you with Facebook. Because they're competitors and their control of that information is their whole business.


Ahh. Naivete. The most value for all the data collected about you is if it is combined. What did you search for on google & what did you like on facebook is a whole lot more valuable than just what you liked or just what you searched for.

That I searched for a The China Study the other day on google doesn't mean I'll buy the book, but if I also post about it on facebook, the odds of me being a potential customer get a lot higher.

You seem to thing Google, et al. are at the top of the data mining food chain.... they aren't.


Oh and, again, if you don't like what a company does with your info, you usually have alternatives. Not true with your all seeing government.


There are no alternatives on the internet. Every company on the internet is leveraging your information -- even those that traditionally make money more directly like Amazon and Apple.

And more than that, even 'real world' businesses are in the game. How many 'club' cards to you have? Will you know your daughter's pregnant before Target does?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/


yawn

LMAO yeah just yawn it away. Did you really not expect the things in the PATRIOT act to actually be used?

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 12:42 PM
What's the hypocrisy. I never blamed the government for the Boston incident. Violence like that is inevitable in a free society.


No one was saying YOU were one of the hypocrites.


The only thing Boston proves is that Prism is about gaining control over Americans more so than terrorists.


Or it's really difficult to sift through the enormous amounts of data that such a system has.


If you want to see hypocrisy....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1511599#.UbTI-5wQVh4

Memories, like the corner of my mind....

Nice red herring.

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 12:45 PM
And sorry but Google can't sell your emails or buy your phone records. And if they did you'd call it criminal.

I see I misquoted this before after you edited the post.

Of course, the above it hilariously idiotic. Selling your emails (or rather, a summary of your email) is EXACTLY what google (and other online email providers) does. That's the business model of gmail.

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 12:53 PM
Ahh. Naivete. The most value for all the data collected about you is if it is combined. What did you search for on google & what did you like on facebook is a whole lot more valuable than just what you liked or just what you searched for.

That I searched for a The China Study the other day on google doesn't mean I'll buy the book, but if I also post about it on facebook, the odds of me being a potential customer get a lot higher.

You seem to thing Google, et al. are at the top of the data mining food chain.... they aren't.

I didn't say they were at the top. But Google doesn't gather information just to sell it to someone who would then sell it to Facebook or Yahoo. Besides, you're focusing on pretty much the least invasive angle on this. It's not just about your personal preferences The real crime of it is in monitoring of correspondence where there's an expectation (legal and otherwise) of privacy. Email? Skype? Complete phone records?

Like I said, if any Company (or Republican) in the world were surreptitiously mining that information in transit, you'd want people thrown in jail.



There are no alternatives on the internet. Every company on the internet is leveraging your information -- even those that traditionally make money more directly like Amazon and Apple.

And more than that, even 'real world' businesses are in the game. How many 'club' cards to you have? Will you know your daughter's pregnant before Target does?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

There are alternatives to using webmail. Or Skype. Search would be difficult, but as I said, that's the least of our concerns with this cluster****.

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 01:03 PM
I see I misquoted this before after you edited the post.

Of course, the above it hilariously idiotic. Selling your emails (or rather, a summary of your email) is EXACTLY what google (and other online email providers) does. That's the business model of gmail.

They can't 'sell' the email. They can look for keywords. But nobody's then allowed to then just read the email (like your government does) if something catches their fancy. But it is a valid concern. Of course a fairly irrelevant one to the point at hand.

Because what you're doing is subjecting everyone to the public's lowest privacy denominator. Just because some people subject themselves to that lack of privacy (with certain communications), all communications everywhere should be subjected to the same standard without anyone's consent?

Some people may not mind living with public webcams all over their house. Does that give the Feds the right to video everyone?

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 01:25 PM
I didn't say they were at the top. But Google doesn't gather information just to sell it to someone who would then sell it to Facebook or Yahoo. Besides, you're focusing on pretty much the least invasive angle on this. It's not just about your personal preferences The real crime of it is in monitoring of correspondence where there's an expectation (legal and otherwise) of privacy. Email? Skype? Complete phone records?


None of that has been protected for a LONG time (in some cases never). You are seriously behind the times here bub.

Phone records? Declared public records a long time ago (not content, but records of calls which is what is being collected)

Email records (including full text)? Only considered "private" for a very limited amount of time (180 days), and only if you haven't read it yet, and then completely unprotected. Completely outdated and useless "protection", even if you don't use "webmail" (SMTP and POP servers quite regularly store emails much, much longer than that)

Skype? LMAO not private at all -- just like any other service provided by Microsoft, etc.

The only way to be even remotely "private" on the internet is to encrypt everything with 3rd party encryption -- and even then it's still trivial to determine the type of information the government is collecting here (i.e. who you're talking to) because you can't encrypt that.


Like I said, if any Company (or Republican) in the world were surreptitiously mining that information in transit, you'd want people thrown in jail.


Like it or not, it's "legal", and all parties are involved. I'm personally just hoping that after the dust settles and all the selective, politically motivated angst stops that people remain aware of the core problem. I don't hold out too much hope. They pretty much dropped their pants and waved their collective wang at us in 2001 and no one gave a sh*t.



There are alternatives to using webmail. Or Skype. Search would be difficult, but as I said, that's the least of our concerns with this cluster****.

The only way to avoid the invasion of your privacy, in either case, is to avoid using technology of any sort. Internet, non-cash transactions, etc.

The blind eye you want to turn to private industry on this matter is very telling. Who cares if Microsoft, etc. are all invading your privacy, it's not like it's the government doing it!

oh wait....

Fedaykin
06-09-2013, 01:28 PM
They can't 'sell' the email. They can look for keywords. But nobody's then allowed to then just read the email (like your government does) if something catches their fancy. But it is a valid concern. Of course a fairly irrelevant one to the point at hand.


There' absolutely no material difference. Do you think the government actually sits down and reads all the trillions of emails? No, they use the same types of algorithms that Google, etc. does (hell, they probably steal the actual algorithms).


Because what you're doing is subjecting everyone to the public's lowest privacy denominator. Just because some people subject themselves to that lack of privacy (with certain communications), all communications everywhere should be subjected to the same standard without anyone's consent?

Some people may not mind living with public webcams all over their house. Does that give the Feds the right to video everyone?

Once again, no one here is defending this.

ant1999e
06-09-2013, 02:09 PM
I have yet to see anyone "defend" it. I see a lot of people who are unable to wrap their minds around the surprise demonstrated by people who somehow didn't know or suspect this has been going on for a long time.

(Edit: After re-reading your post, I suspect the bolded part is referring to legislators. I thought you were referring to people on the board.)


:wave:
I know people are going excited and political spin is going to be overboard, but in reality it about some of your fellow Americans attempting to keep you safe. They were faced with a problem and very scary potential that there were individuals in country that were out to kill innocent people.

To solve that problem they turned to technology to solve that that problem, a major strategic and tactical advantage that we have over rest of the world. They used large scale data mining and big data techniques to notice patterns and outliers to narrow their focus and then go get legal authority to investigate. Something similar that Google, Amazon and large brick and mortar companies do all the time with our data lifestyles. (There is reason Google flashes certain ads to you)

This is how they caught the dude in Denver that was going to attempt to bomb the NYC subway system. The notice activity between a known terrorist email system and seldom used email account in the US. The NSA turned that information to the FBI and CIA to investigate and follow the legal process.

In world were your life is has unique data footprint, and anyone that has resources can build a profile of your life, this is loss of privacy you live with.

ant1999e
06-09-2013, 02:10 PM
There' absolutely no material difference. Do you think the government actually sits down and reads all the trillions of emails? No, they use the same types of algorithms that Google, etc. does (hell, they probably steal the actual algorithms).



Once again, no one here is defending this.

See previous post.

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 02:55 PM
None of that has been protected for a LONG time (in some cases never). You are seriously behind the times here bub.

Phone records? Declared public records a long time ago (not content, but records of calls which is what is being collected)

Demonstrably not true. Hence the reason the NSA needs a standing FISA warrant to collect those records.

Email records (including full text)? Only considered "private" for a very limited amount of time (180 days), and only if you haven't read it yet, and then completely unprotected. Completely outdated and useless "protection", even if you don't use "webmail" (SMTP and POP servers quite regularly store emails much, much longer than that)

True or false. If a company sniffed and read emails that had simply transferred over its network between third parties, they would be committing a crime.

This is what your government is doing.

Skype? LMAO not private at all -- just like any other service provided by Microsoft, etc.

The only way to be even remotely "private" on the internet is to encrypt everything with 3rd party encryption -- and even then it's still trivial to determine the type of information the government is collecting here (i.e. who you're talking to) because you can't encrypt that.

Here you're conflating technical security measures with lawfulness. SMTP is completely unencrypted. Nobody that I'm aware of has ever made the argument that simply because something is unencrypted (or trivially so) it becomes lawful to intercept and utilize. There's no legal basis for that. If someone uses a **** password on their hotmail account, does that mean anyone who can figure it out is legally entitled to read their email?

No, that's a crime.

If you leave your front door unlocked, do police need a warrant to search your house? It's the same thing. Because of the 4th Amendment, the government isn't only held to the same standard as private entities, it's held to a HIGHER standard.

elsid13
06-09-2013, 04:01 PM
See previous post.

Yes I do think the program is legal and justified. Unlike most here I understand what they are doing and why and not getting caught up in the ridiculous spin and fear mongering. Also people that been fully briefed and granted access support it to.

http://news.yahoo.com/intelligence-committee-leaders-defend-nsa-surveillance-173750967--abc-news-topstories.html

" The leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence committees defended the National Security Agency's phone and internet surveillance programs revealed last week, saying that the programs are "within the law" and have been critical in thwarting potential terrorist attacks.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said on "This Week" Sunday that the NSA phone surveillance program revealed in reports last week is limited in scope to viewing phone records, not listening to private conversations, while reiterating that court orders are required for further information.

"The program is essentially walled off within the NSA. There are limited numbers of people who have access to it," Feinstein said on "This Week." "The only thing taken, as has been correctly expressed, is not content of a conversation, but the information that is generally on your telephone bill, which has been held not to be private personal property by the Supreme Court. If there is strong suspicion that a terrorist outside of the country is trying to reach someone on the inside of the country, those numbers then can be obtained. If you want to collect content on the American, then a court order is issued.""

"The National Security Agency does not listen to Americans' phone calls and it is not reading Americans' emails. None of these programs allow that," added Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

elsid13
06-09-2013, 04:03 PM
Yeah great example. Of how the government can gather all this info and be absolutely useless to do anything productive with it. You do realize this program was already in place. Oh and the Ruskies told us to watch out for these guys but apparently with both prior warning and all this surveillance they were still unable to connect any dots.

So what use was setting aside everyone's 4th Amendment rights?

And sorry but Google can't sell your emails or buy your phone records. And if they did you'd call it criminal.

They didn't gather all the data in one place. It one of the main reason the IC is attempting to build private cloud that will allow access to all the data they have gather and turn it into information. The problem is the security controls and needs to know.

And yes Google and Facebook sell information about to third parties. See the 60 minute link I posted.

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 04:46 PM
They didn't gather all the data in one place. It one of the main reason the IC is attempting to build private cloud that will allow access to all the data they have gather and turn it into information. The problem is the security controls and needs to know.

No, the problem is the government wants to see everything, look for things that are 'wrong' and then pursue them.

It's precisely the reason the 4th Amendment was written. Because as the government has repeatedly shown over its history... its definition of right and wrong is eminently flexible.

elsid13
06-09-2013, 05:10 PM
No, the problem is the government wants to see everything, look for things that are 'wrong' and then pursue them.

It's precisely the reason the 4th Amendment was written. Because as the government has repeatedly shown over its history... its definition of right and wrong is eminently flexible.

They don't want to look at everything, the people working at NSA, NRO, CIA and rest of the IC want to protect their fellow Americans and our way of life. The people you get in the agencies are attempting to do very hard job and they all care very much about this country.

That what they were doing and now because with some low level idiot decided he knew better then whole of folks, we have lose viable shield in defending this nation.

BroncoBeavis
06-09-2013, 05:16 PM
They don't want to look at everything, the people working at NSA, NRO, CIA and rest of the IC want to protect their fellow Americans and our way of life. The people you get in the agencies are attempting to do very hard job and they all care very much about this country.

That what they were doing and now because with some low level idiot decided he knew better then whole of folks, we have lose viable shield in defending this nation.

I have no doubt most of them believe that. I'm sure most of their IRS brethren believe that as well. The reality however is that there is no freedom if that freedom hinges entirely on the motives and ethical standards of federal agents.

alkemical
06-09-2013, 09:21 PM
elsid, just for myself, and pov: don't use congress and their comitees as endorsements. these are thesame dbags selling us out for cash.

i do find it interesting the whislteblower is in hong kong, wonder if china's laughing: "don't yell at us for hacking, you hack your own people"

one other thing elsid, the FISA court is secret, so review and over sight is not something i have great faith in.

cutthemdown
06-10-2013, 03:51 AM
Let me guess all the liberals hate prism. They think its a huge overreach. But they refuse to hold obama accountable because the evil republicans are too blame for the Patriot Act.

Pony Boy
06-10-2013, 07:10 AM
Let me guess all the liberals hate prism. They think its a huge overreach. But they refuse to hold obama accountable because the evil republicans are too blame for the Patriot Act.

The alternative would be to admit that BO doesn't have a clue what's going on behind his back in his administration.

houghtam
06-10-2013, 07:29 AM
The alternative would be to admit that BO doesn't have a clue what's going on behind his back in his administration.

No the alternative is just to say he's more of the same.

Again, cut has a nasty habit of attributing the words worse or worst to someone he also says is more of the same.

And define "hold accountable"? If there wasn't going to be an investigation into Iraq, if Nixon was pardoned, how on gods green earth do you expect to "hold Obama accountable?"

BroncoBeavis
06-10-2013, 11:45 AM
No the alternative is just to say he's more of the same.

Again, cut has a nasty habit of attributing the words worse or worst to someone he also says is more of the same.

And define "hold accountable"? If there wasn't going to be an investigation into Iraq, if Nixon was pardoned, how on gods green earth do you expect to "hold Obama accountable?"

I don't give a crap about holding Obama accountable. He's not going anywhere. I just want it stopped. And the whole idea of surveilling the nation without any kind of public process or even notice needs to be aired out.

houghtam
06-10-2013, 11:53 AM
I don't give a crap about holding Obama accountable. He's not going anywhere. I just want it stopped. And the whole idea of surveilling the nation without any kind of public process or even notice needs to be aired out.

And how do you think it is going to happen? Who is going to champion that cause, when there is not only a near certainty of failure, but there's not even any money to be made off it?

Never underestimate people's ability to sell out everyone else for more money or power. Look no further than Obama...at best, he has no power to control these things. At worst, he approves of and expands upon them with full knowledge of the implications. And that's if you believed he was any different in the first place.

In another thread, baja asked if the people would allow this to happen. They already have, and will continue to do so.

TonyR
06-10-2013, 01:04 PM
I am sympathetic to those who believe that the general existence of a program of analyzing global metadata should have been made public. But I doubt meaningful democratic debate about the program would have been possible unless details were given, so that people actually understood what they were debating about. Details like who is targeted, and why, and on the basis of what evidence; details like what abuses might take place, and how they are corrected. Details about the involvement of private sector companies. Retrospective assessments of whether particular acts of surveillance were justified. But once the N.S.A. reveals the details of the policy, its effectiveness diminishes as targets learn how to evade it. I wish there were a solution to this problem but I don’t see it.http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/09/is-the-nsa-surveillance-threat-real-or-imagined

Rigs11
06-10-2013, 03:04 PM
Boehner: Up to Obama to explain NSA order
By Rachel Weiner, Published: June 6, 2013 at 12:24 pmE-mail the writer
18Comments More
President Obama should explain to the American people why the National Security Agency is apparently collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Verizon customers, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday morning. But the Republican lawmaker did not criticize the phone surveillance itself, which was first reported on by The Guardian.

“It’s important for the president to outline to the American people why the tools that he has available to him are critical” in preventing a terrorist attack, Boehner told reporters at a news briefing on Capitol Hill.Asked whether lawmakers should answer for an order that fell under the Patriot Act they passed, Boehner disagreed. “The tools were given to the administration, and it’s the administration’s responsibility to explain how these tools are used,” he said. ”I’ll leave it to them to explain.”

Congress’s responsibility, he said, was to provide oversight, and he is “fully confident” that both the House and Senate intelligence committees are doing so.

Boehner declined to discuss what he or other House members knew about the surveillance order. “I don’t discuss classified data here in front of all of you,” he said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said earlier Thursday that the entire Senate has been briefed on the program, and that it is nothing new.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/06/boehner-up-to-obama-to-explain-nsa-order/

BroncoBeavis
06-10-2013, 03:52 PM
And how do you think it is going to happen? Who is going to champion that cause, when there is not only a near certainty of failure, but there's not even any money to be made off it?

Never underestimate people's ability to sell out everyone else for more money or power. Look no further than Obama...at best, he has no power to control these things. At worst, he approves of and expands upon them with full knowledge of the implications. And that's if you believed he was any different in the first place.

In another thread, baja asked if the people would allow this to happen. They already have, and will continue to do so.

This is a good and yet troubling line of reasoning. I think the Supreme Court will have to be put on record one way or another. They are the last best hope on this (although they've been anything but reliable on civil liberties when it comes to actual civilians lately)

But Whether the Public has the interest to hold Congress' feet to the fire is a separate question. It's such a blend of ignorance and passive-aggressive apathy at this point that I have no idea if we're capable of driving real change anymore. Maybe it's just a case of needing the right leader to come along and get the people behind it, as has happened throughout our history.

Fedaykin
06-10-2013, 04:24 PM
Demonstrably not true. Hence the reason the NSA needs a standing FISA warrant to collect those records.


No warrant is needed -- by any agency at any level of government -- to collect phone records. They are considered a matter of public record and only require a subpena to gather.


True or false. If a company sniffed and read emails that had simply transferred over its network between third parties, they would be committing a crime.

This is what your government is doing.


No, the government is taking at rest data. That's the whole point of engaging with these companies. They are not sniffing traffic (at least not with this program -- they are with ECHELON since the 60s).

And of course, all this is made perfectly "legal" by the PATRIOT Act and other similar absurdities that "we've" allowed out of fear.


Here you're conflating technical security measures with lawfulness.

The point wasn't made clear. The point is that when you sign up for a service on the internet, in most cases you give explicit authorization to the company providing that service to do whatever they please with "your" data: emails, posts, voip, etc.

There is absolutely no such thing as privacy on the internet.

BroncoBeavis
06-10-2013, 04:42 PM
No warrant is needed -- by any agency at any level of government -- to collect phone records. They are considered a matter of public record and only require a subpena to gather.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

Definitely not a matter of public record by any stretch of the imagination. And as documented above the government obtained a FISA court order, which means they can't possibly regard them as 'public record' either.

There may be some argument over whether the phone company is free to release those records on their own accord. But there's zero argument that they are 'public record' and can be forcibly obtained from a Telco without a warrant. I guarantee you Verizon wouldn't have released those records without the warrant.

No, the government is taking at rest data. That's the whole point of engaging with these companies. They are not sniffing traffic (at least not with this program -- they are with ECHELON since the 60s).

Details are still coming out. But from reading what the leaker has had to say, if his account is accurate, your statement is categorically wrong.

And of course, all this is made perfectly "legal" by the PATRIOT Act and other similar absurdities that "we've" allowed out of fear.

No piece of legislation or interpretation thereof can undo the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court needs to make this clear.

The point wasn't made clear. The point is that when you sign up for a service on the internet, in most cases you give explicit authorization to the company providing that service to do whatever they please with "your" data: emails, posts, voip, etc.

There is absolutely no such thing as privacy on the internet.

No, they can't do anything they want. They are legally bound to honor their user agreement. As far as I know none of the major players reserve themselves the right to distribute your personal correspondence at will.

alkemical
06-10-2013, 04:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7BmdovYztH8




Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

Fedaykin
06-10-2013, 04:57 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

Definitely not a matter of public record by any stretch of the imagination. And as documented above the government obtained a FISA court order, which means they can't possibly regard them as 'public record' either.


The court order in question is a SUBPENA.


There may be some argument over whether the phone company is free to release those records on their own accord. But there's zero argument that they are 'public record' and can be forcibly obtained from a Telco without a warrant. I guarantee you Verizon wouldn't have released those records without the warrant.


Bull****. Verizon will sell that data to anyone willing to pay:

http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/cpniwireless/

Almost all phone companies have similar policies. By agreeing to their service, you are agreeing to letting them sell your phone records.


Details are still coming out. But from reading what the leaker has had to say, if his account is accurate, your statement is categorically wrong.


I've seen no details that indicate. Again, the entire purpose of this program is that they can't get what they want with ECHELON/wire snooping.


No piece of legislation or interpretation thereof can undo the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court needs to make this clear.


I agree. Until they do that, it's the law of the land and what "everyone" has agreed to let them do.


No, they can't do anything they want. They are legally bound to honor their user agreement. As far as I know none of the major players reserve themselves the right to distribute your personal correspondence at will.

Yep, and guess what their user agreement says?

Again, here's a nice example: http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/cpniwireless/

And again, google, etc. distributes your personal email correspondence at will as well -- because you agree to let them do that when you sign up.

BroncoBeavis
06-10-2013, 05:13 PM
The court order in question is a SUBPENA.

A Subpena? Sounds dirty. LOL

If it was, if it was on the government's behalf as part of a secret program, there's little functional difference.


Bull****. Verizon will sell that data to anyone willing to pay:

http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/cpniwireless/

Almost all phone companies have similar policies. By agreeing to their service, you are agreeing to letting them sell your phone records.

Yeah, that document doesn't say that. Might want to read it again.

I've seen no details that indicate. Again, the entire purpose of this program is that they can't get what they want with ECHELON/wire snooping.

Dude, the guy talks about current emails, credit card info, even passwords. There's no argument that any of that would be ordinarily (ever) legal to obtain.

TonyR
06-11-2013, 10:34 AM
Interesting reader email posted by Sullivan today:

After reading Marc Ambinder’s summary, I am hoping people aren’t making the same mistake about PRISM that I once made about Gmail. When Gmail first came out, I was working in the California legislature, and a co-worker and I thought it was a terrible idea for Google to, in effect, “read” everyone’s mail and provide ads targeted to them. Our boss introduced a bill to prohibit Google from doing this.

I was assigned to defend the bill at a tech conference, and let’s say I had some misconceptions firmly and uniformly corrected.

No one at Google reads (or could read) anyone’s email. That would be (a) impossible, given the volume of email, and (b) a pretty stupid thing for a company to try to do. Google has pretty sophisticated algorithms that can scan millions of texts for words and phrases that advertisers believe would be relevant to a particular commercial purpose. Ads matching those terms are posted next to the email, and no human (except the recipient) has ever seen anything.

I’m not sure if any actual humans ever see any Facebook postings, but my guess is that the first pass of PRISM works like Gmail. Someone has developed algorithms for potentially dangerous words and phrases, and the millions or billions of Facebook posts are scanned for those. The algorithm’s bar would have to be fairly high, since the number of posts would be astronomical, I would imagine.

Posts that make it over the bar (still not having been viewed by any human being) would then be collected into some output that IS more closely examined, and this may be the stage where humans might be involved. Again, I don’t have any special knowledge here, but I honestly can’t imagine how this could work any other way. The only things that are ever actually seen by human eyes are those that have some markers of potential serious threats.

I can see how some people might still find little comfort in that, and I’m sure there would have to be many false positives in a system like this. But I think it’s far more consistent with your intuition about why this isn’t such a horrible invasion of privacy – an intuition that it seems a lot of us share.

That difference between technological review of data and human eyes viewing (and possibly abusing) communication is an important distinction. If PRISM is more like Gmail than like J. Edgar Hoover’s private FBI files, then this has less to do with privacy than some people might fear. I, for one, got over my concerns about Gmail, and happily got one of its first accounts, which I use to this day.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/11/what-is-prism-exactly-ctd/

BroncoBeavis
06-11-2013, 10:44 AM
]Posts that make it over the bar (still not having been viewed by any human being) would then be collected into some output that IS more closely examined, and this may be the stage where humans might be involved. Again, I don’t have any special knowledge here, but I honestly can’t imagine how this could work any other way. The only things that are ever actually seen by human eyes are those that have some markers of potential serious threats.

Yes, it's comforting to know that the same Government that specifically searched for and exploited political groups based on keywords can also keyword search pretty much every bit of correspondence stored anywhere. LOL

BroncoBeavis
06-11-2013, 11:36 AM
This is kind of an uncovered angle, but it's pretty huge if you think about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/merkel-other-european-leaders-raise-concerns-on-us-surveillance/2013/06/10/305eddda-d1da-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

This really endangers one of the few true economic advantages we've got going for us at this point. And we're endangering it by not only revealing our own sketchy policies towards privacy, but by basically advertising that we respect international users' privacy even less.

There's a real selling point for Germans to use Google's or Facebook's services.

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 05:20 AM
The story isn't the prism program. Is any surprised they are doing that? The story is democrats before this acted like they would be against such things, while at the same time we sort of knew repubs like Cheney and Runsfield, Bush jr etc would be for whatever catches terrorists.

The story is that dems are full of it and no different. That they only acted like something of this nature was bad or wrong to get elected. Now dems find out they aren't different. They have proven themselves big wall street ends justify the means politicians. Like I said many times before the only issue that matters are taxes and social programs/change. because when it comes to being about wall street and security both parties pretty close.

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 05:23 AM
I agree this is a horrible thing for America. To have this info leaked out is so damaging who knows what it costs us. Dem or Repub, like our govt or not, we all can agree they need to be sneaky. We just didn't realize it was with us so much. I was a little shocked at the scope but as far as listening on other countries not surprised at all. They get no Constitutional protection. But if the result right now is terrorists afraid to use phone, afriad to use interenet, maybe it works some that way. Seriously maybe actually mailing a letter is safer. Thats one thing not touched on. What about regular mail, is it being opened? xrayed somehow and read? Can't believe that hasn't been thrown about.

TonyR
06-19-2013, 09:33 AM
NSA director: Surveillance foiled 50 terror plots

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/nsa-surveillance-secret-programs-terror-plots/2434193/

BroncoBeavis
06-19-2013, 10:14 AM
NSA director: Surveillance foiled 50 terror plots

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/nsa-surveillance-secret-programs-terror-plots/2434193/

Great, the guys who just got done telling us the program didn't exist are now telling us how uber important it is.

And if this is one of the only heralded examples they could use, that's pretty sad sack.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/13/zazi-headley-feinstein-nsa

Essentially the best they could say about Prism 'helping' in this case is that it allowed them to monitor the guy without going through all the trouble of obtaining a warrant. I guess Civil Libertarians should be relieved? I mean how else is a bureaucracy supposed to function if we expect them to jump through all these hoops like obtaining warrants before looking through everyone's ****. LOL

Rohirrim
06-19-2013, 10:54 AM
Interesting reader email posted by Sullivan today:


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/11/what-is-prism-exactly-ctd/

What Sullivan is naively, or purposely ignoring here is two major points. One is that the algorithm can be changed at any moment in time to collect other bits of data, including other content. The category of interest can easily be changed from "terrorist" to "subversive" or maybe "malcontent" or "environmentalist" or any other heading you can come up with. Then, you simply change the menu of terms under the search parameters. Two, he is buying into the conditioning. It's another incremental intrusion on our freedom and privacy. "Gee, we're doing a good thing here because we're only targeting terrorists. What could be wrong with that?"

He should reread the Niemoller dictum, "First they came for the..."

TonyR
06-19-2013, 10:59 AM
What Sullivan is naively, or purposely ignoring here is...

His readers are pounding him on this issue. To his credit, as he always does, he is publishing the dissent and answering it.

houghtam
06-19-2013, 11:08 AM
You're both right, Rho and Beavis. Although if you know anything about the legal process, you know that rubber stamp warrants are nothing new, and have been used at every level of the judiciary at one time or another for one reason or another. How long do you think it would have taken to get a search warrant in Boston of the police knocked on someone's door and been met with a suspicious individual?

Neither is the idea of government surveillance anything new, as has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum and just about everywhere else. You are all making circular arguments with one another, but all I hear is complaining with a partisan slant.

At least when I asked this the first time, Beavis had an answer...albeit a very passive one. The question is this:

Despite all your complaining, what are you planning on doing/what have you done to ADDRESS the problem, whatever you may think the problem is? Are you only planning on speaking with your vote? Whom do you plan on supporting? Have you written or called your members of congress? Do you volunteer? Have you attempted to educate other people?

Otherwise, stop the arguing, and stop the b****ing. For all the outrage, I have yet to see anyone provide a viable alternative (viable...REALISTIC). And for the amount of time people spend on here, I'd be surprised at how much letter writing or phone calling is getting done.

Rohirrim
06-19-2013, 12:39 PM
His readers are pounding him on this issue. To his credit, as he always does, he is publishing the dissent and answering it.

I'm afraid technology is outstripping our ability to manage it. It's like the Wall Street collapse. The majority of those in the derivatives market didn't even understand how it worked. They just followed a formula. The math was way over their heads. Congressmen look at the algorithms Google is using the way a chimpanzee looks at a crescent wrench. This area is ripe for abuse.

cutthemdown
06-19-2013, 06:24 PM
This thread would have been a lot different if it happened while bush is in office.

houghtam
06-19-2013, 06:40 PM
This thread would have been a lot different if it happened while bush is in office.

It did happen while he was in office.

cutthemdown
06-19-2013, 06:45 PM
Cool bring that thread you started up and lets see what you said about it.

cutthemdown
06-19-2013, 06:47 PM
Seriously is there anything that wasn't Bush's fault, done under bush, started under Bush, a Bush idea that you are willing to pin on Obama? Anything? Bueller?

TonyR
06-20-2013, 08:48 AM
Speaking with Charlie Rose, Obama portrayed himself–as he did in his recent address on his drone and detention policies–as copiously working to strike a balance. “[W]e don’t have to sacrifice our freedom in order to achieve security. That’s a false choice,” Obama told Rose. “And so every program that we engage in, what I’ve said is, ‘Let’s examine and make sure that we’re making the right tradeoffs.’” Obama also clarified key points that may be lost on people who only follow the surveillance debate casually–namely that “if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails,” as he put it. A longtime critic of fear-mongering about terrorism, Obama was tonally measured about the threat. http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/18/after-slow-start-obama-administration-finds-its-voice-on-surveillance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME %3A+Swampland%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Dr. Broncenstein
06-20-2013, 08:51 AM
What is a U.S. person?

TonyR
06-20-2013, 08:58 AM
What is a U.S. person?

That was an intersting way to phrase it...

Pony Boy
06-20-2013, 09:26 AM
What is a U.S. person?

It’s a term for a U.S. citizen that has lost all constitutional rights

broncocalijohn
06-20-2013, 11:19 AM
Good point. Touche! :thumbs:

I think the main point I have about guns is that I'm worried about arming people who are stupid enough to follow empty headed ideologues like Bachmann and Palin while sucking up the insane rants of bozos like Glenn Beck. See the problem there?

It's fine to imagine upstanding, well educated and involved citizens owning firearms as a bulwark against tyranny. It's another thing when you're arming morons. ;D

You could just as easy as arm someone with a computer or pen and put out **** that would make yellow journalism of the Spanish American War look like a spit wad fight. As said before, "The pen is mightier than the sword".

Rohirrim
06-20-2013, 04:20 PM
"...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." Thus spoke President Dwight Eisenhower in January 1961.

Now we have an intelligence-industrial complex composed of close to a dozen and a half federal intelligence agencies and services, many of which are duplicative, and in the last decade or two the growth of a private sector intelligence world. Originally initiated in the National Security Act of 1947 as instrumental in conducting the Cold War, this massive expansion of data collection and analysis continued on even after the Cold War ended in 1991 and then received renewed energy with the declaration of a "global war on terrorism."

It is dangerous to have a technology-empowered government capable of amassing private data; it is even more dangerous to privatize this Big Brother world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-intelligenceindustria_b_3473283.html

TonyR
07-09-2013, 10:56 AM
The 11 FISA judges, chosen from throughout the federal bench for seven-year terms, are all appointed by the chief justice. In fact, every FISA judge currently serving was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who will continue making such appointments until he retires or dies. FISA judges don’t need confirmation — by Congress or anyone else.

No other part of U.S. law works this way. The chief justice can’t choose the judges who rule on health law, or preside over labor cases, or decide software patents. But when it comes to surveillance, the composition of the bench is entirely in his hands and so, as a result, is the extent to which the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation can spy on citizens.

“It really is up to these FISA judges to decide what the law means and what the NSA and FBI gets to do,” said Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute. “So Roberts is single handedly choosing the people who get to decide how much surveillance we’re subject to.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court.html

Rohirrim
07-09-2013, 11:03 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court.html

You won't find that bull**** anywhere in the Constitution. Of course, none of these ****ers pays attention to the Constitution anymore.