NSA monitoring all Verizon users

[LazyBoy]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

The problem with good people is that we have a hard time believing that people can be evil. Sociopaths prey on good people all the time because sociopathic thinking is beyond the ability of most people to fathom. When you have sociopaths running government, thinking that all will turn out well if we just let them protect us is just a comforting fantasy. It's living in denial.

Actual evil is not required.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-- Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

[shiny!]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

The story about the Verizon records was, but the story about NSA accessing directly the servers of our major internet companies -- titled PRISM -- was broken this morning by the Washington Post. Don pasted it in above, but here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/invest...497_story.html

Looks like a good old-fashioned whistle-blower leaking to the Post (a group in which I am a proud member emeritus, incidentally) apparently a former intelligence manager at either NSA or FBI. I hope this person knows how to cover his/her tracks, because that is one very valuable intelligence program that just got publicly outed -- the raw data of which comprises nearly 1 in 7 of all intelligence briefings, according to the article.

So if you think Bradley Manning is being crucified, wait til they get their hands on this guy.

I wonder why the WaPo decided to go forward with this piece?

So glad to be wrong about this. It's good to know that our press came forward with this story. I also thought about Bradley Manning, and how this is so much bigger.

Looking at the accelerating decimation of the Constitution during the last few decades I've long wondered what, if anything, would stop it. The people are powerless- demonstrations in the street are useless. The twin-party system is broken, co-opted by Big Money. The press is largely a propaganda machine for the government, or has been until recently. The only power left to fight an overweening federal government is the military. I've largely given up hope, but if I have any left it's that people in very high places in the military will finally say, "ENOUGH!"

Seems more than a little co-incidental that so many scandals involving the federal government's abuse of it's power are coming to light right now. These are things that have been going on for years, and they're all being exposed right now. IMO this is how a modern-day coup is waged.

[gwynedd1]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

I am willing to do anything for the sake of our safety, particularly limiting the power of government.

[don]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

Seems more than a little co-incidental that so many scandals involving the federal government's abuse of it's power are coming to light right now. These are things that have been going on for years, and they're all being exposed right now. IMO this is how a modern-day coup is waged.

Probably more like the typical use made of a lame duck president. Outing him so the next guy, who will ramp up his abuses even further, is given a fresh start.

[don]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

I am willing to do anything for the sake of our safety, particularly limiting the power of government.

+1 Well done, well said.

[astonas]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

Actual evil is not required.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-- Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

Nor is an ideological striving for liberty necessarily a defense against evil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil

Arendt shows a thorough understanding of the role of ideology in evil in general and Eichmann in particular. Take, for example, the following passage from her Origins of Totalitarianism:

Once ideologies’ claim to total validity is taken literally they become the nuclei of logical systems in which, as in the systems of paranoiacs, everything follows comprehensibly and even compulsorily once the first premise is accepted. The insanity of such systems lies not only in their first premise but in the very logicality with which they are constructed. The curious logicality of all isms, their simpleminded trust in the salvation value of stubborn devotion without regard for specific, varying factors, already harbors the first germs of totalitarian contempt for reality and factuality.

—Hannah Arendt, ^[3]

Eichmann was blindly following orders; but ideology was what made him blind.

[don]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

just a brief law and order note, down Texas way . . .

Ezekiel Gilbert denied he meant to kill Craigslist escort.

A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort.

Gilbert, 30, embraced defense attorneys Bobby Barrera and Roy Barrera Sr. with tears in his eyes after the not guilty verdict was read aloud by state District Judge Mary Román.

Outside the courtroom, Gilbert thanked God, the Barrera family and the jury for being able to “see what wasn't the truth” and for the “second chance.”

Had he been convicted, he could have faced up to life in prison for the slaying of Lenora Ivie Frago who died about seven months after she was shot in the neck and paralyzed on Christmas Eve 2009. Gilbert admitted shooting Frago.

“I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago,” Gilbert said Wednesday. “I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel.”

The verdict came after almost 11 hours of deliberations that stretched over two days. The trial began May 17 but had a long hiatus after a juror unexpectedly had to leave town for a funeral.

During closing arguments Tuesday, Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.

Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said.

That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme.

The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for “law-abiding” citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...er-4581027.php

OJ sure picked the wrong state to get his memorabilia stuff back

[Prazak]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

So glad to be wrong about this. It's good to know that our press came forward with this story. I also thought about Bradley Manning, and how this is so much bigger.

Looking at the accelerating decimation of the Constitution during the last few decades I've long wondered what, if anything, would stop it. The people are powerless- demonstrations in the street are useless. The twin-party system is broken, co-opted by Big Money. The press is largely a propaganda machine for the government, or has been until recently. The only power left to fight an overweening federal government is the military. I've largely given up hope, but if I have any left it's that people in very high places in the military will finally say, "ENOUGH!"

Seems more than a little co-incidental that so many scandals involving the federal government's abuse of it's power are coming to light right now. These are things that have been going on for years, and they're all being exposed right now. IMO this is how a modern-day coup is waged.

Actually, I think I'm the one who's wrong here. Looking again at Don's story I see that it too was from the Guardian. So it appears that both the Guardian and the Post broke the story on the same day, with nearly the same lead.

But I still wonder why the Post decided to go forward with this story. Maybe because TPTB knew the Guardian would be breaking it anyway; might as well do a good turn for the WaPo. One hand washes the other, you know.

[c1ue]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

Maybe I'm wrong about this . . . but I want the authorities to be vigilant.

With the possibility of a nuclear bomb being set off in a major city, and the fact that there are Muslim radicals around the world that would like to kill us, I'm happy that the government is trying to detect terrorism before it happens.

Like any tool, surveillance can be misused. But the bad guys use telecommunications to organize their mayhem, and looking for patterns in phone calls seems a logical way find them before the terrorists kill another 3,000 Americans . . . or next time maybe 30,000,000.

We need to be vigilant about government activities, and when it goes to far, we must stop it. But so far, I don't think it's gone too far.

I disagree.

If you look at 9/11 and the Boston Bombing - the perps in both cases were actually already known by someone. Osama was a US ally when he was shooting Russians; it was only when Americans started dying that he became Public Enemy Number One.

Equally the Chechens were heroic freedom fighters when they were kidnapping and killing Russians (and selling oil and oil pipelines to Americans and American companies), but after the Boston Marathon - are persona non grata.

I'd further note that if we have already seen selective persecution of political groups - no matter how idiotic (that's you, Tea Party) - I cannot see how acceptance of widespread surveillance on everyone, everywhere can possibly be a good thing.

I mean, seriously, where is this 'East German surveillance state is a good' meme coming from?

Is the fact that it is some computer snooping on everything you do - from your internet usage, to your cell phone calls, to your landline calls (as they are now IP packet based, not clear even that the NSA needs wiretaps to tap into phones anymore), to the television you watch, to the surveillance cameras all over the place - is this somehow ok when having your friends, neighbors, parents, children, or random acquaintances spy on you?

More importantly, if a thoroughly authoritarian state like East Germany practiced such a level of surveillance, why exactly is the 'land of the free' doing similar things - better?

[raja]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

I am willing to do anything for the sake of our safety, particularly limiting the power of government.

If you believe that government power inevitably leads to fascism, then less government is always better.
If you believe that government can be a force for good -- despite some corruption and repression -- then government programs that counteract destructive forces are a good thing.

I think that preventing a dirty nuclear bomb from going off in a major city is worth the risk that surveillance measures might get out of control . . . at least at this point.

I may be wrong . . . .

[c1ue]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

If you believe that government power inevitably leads to fascism, then less government is always better.
If you believe that government can be a force for good -- despite some corruption and repression -- then government programs that counteract destructive forces are a good thing.

I think that preventing a dirty nuclear bomb from going off in a major city is worth the risk that surveillance measures might get out of control . . . at least at this point.

I may be wrong . . . .

This isn't a more or less government issue.

This is about what government is or is not entitled to. Having 1 person as the 'government' doesn't in any way entitle the government to more (or less).

Equally to say that 'preventing a dirty nuclear bomb' is worth destroying our liberties and freedoms - well, I personally disagree with you.

The only nuclear bombs that have been used on people were used by governments.

If you want to prevent a dirty nuclear bomb from going off - first you secure the dirty nuclear materials.

Then you stop antagonizing a laundry list of angry people.

As I noted above - both examples of domestic US terrorism, the US government not only knew about, but actively promoted at some point because of short sighted geopolitical maneuvering. How does a continuous monitoring of all Americans' communication channels and behavior help when the US was promoting Chechens and Osama for shooting Russians, only to have these people end up shooting Americans later on? I'll note that in the Tsarnaev's case, they were even in the US because they were 'political refugees'.

[reggie]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

This is really upsetting. In my lifetime we have gone from living in freedom to living in an elaborate illusion of freedom. We're in a large, beautiful, glittering ballroom, but pull back the curtains to look outside and all you will find are brick walls instead of windows.

Why Verizon and only Verizon? Unless they're doing this with all the carriers but Verizon is the only one that came to light. Because it makes no sense to do this unless they do it 100%. It makes no sense to do this anyway. From a security standpoint, having too much data to sift through is as useless as having too little.

I wonder if they're collecting data from landline POTS calls as well?

I think that I can fairly say that I've been trying to expose the system in repeated posts, mostly to hostile or non-responses.

What's amusing about this latest media campaign is that it is more propaganda. This time, the continued aim is to:

(1) internalize fear of using ubiquitous technological systems (thereby inhibiting behaviors), and
(2) convince the public that they have no right to privacy.

One thing we can be certain of is that the system will never ever provide the masses with the full picture.

Bottom line, the system was defined, designed, deployed and operated to be a massive feedback control system on a global scale. Feedback of a signal requires measuring that signal and then applying an adjustment to the system (in this case, the public users of tech networks) in the form of more feedback, until the desired state is reached. Now that these systems are embedded, fear becomes a more significant part of the agenda, in order to stymie individuality, originality and action.

This system, built by defense budgets, and expanded via cardboard cutout companies such as Google, was alway meant to be just another weapon system against the public, while simultaneously convincing us of its democratic virtue by jean and turtle neck wearing front men created in a test tube and farmed to academic families to integrate into society (an outgrowth of the Lebensborn program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn).

In tihs presentation, Berkeley professor, Steve Blank, gives a little insight into the forces behind Silicon Valley...

[flintlock]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

This isn't a more or less government issue.

This is about what government is or is not entitled to. Having 1 person as the 'government' doesn't in any way entitle the government to more (or less).

Equally to say that 'preventing a dirty nuclear bomb' is worth destroying our liberties and freedoms - well, I personally disagree with you.

The only nuclear bombs that have been used on people were used by governments.

If you want to prevent a dirty nuclear bomb from going off - first you secure the dirty nuclear materials.

Then you stop antagonizing a laundry list of angry people.

As I noted above - both examples of domestic US terrorism, the US government not only knew about, but actively promoted at some point because of short sighted geopolitical maneuvering. How does a continuous monitoring of all Americans' communication channels and behavior help when the US was promoting Chechens and Osama for shooting Russians, only to have these people end up shooting Americans later on? I'll note that in the Tsarnaev's case, they were even in the US because they were 'political refugees'.

Amen. How odd that the average American is just now seeing his government in a true light. Its become an out of control behemoth with no moral compass. I'm all for "vigilance" but this goes way past that. The US should be more concerned with the company it keeps overseas and why maybe just perhaps that has something to do with its being in the terrorist bullseye. Funny how there is no protest until its oneself who is being trampled underfoot by this beast.

[reggie]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

Perhaps it's time to revisit this little article...

Well, These New Zuckerberg IMs Won't Help Facebook's Privacy Problems
Nicholas Carlson | May 13, 2010, 11:19 AM | 503,295 | 220
http://www.businessinsider.com/well-...roblems-2010-5

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his company are suddenly facing a big new round of scrutiny and criticism about their cavalier attitude toward user privacy.

An early instant messenger exchange Mark had with a college friend won't help put these concerns to rest.

According to SAI sources, the following exchange is between a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and a friend shortly after Mark launched The Facebook in his dorm room:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Brutal.

Could Mark have been completely joking? Sure. But the exchange does reveal that Facebook's aggressive attitude toward privacy may have begun early on.

Since Facebook launched, the company has faced one privacy flap after another, usually following changes to the privacy policy or new product releases. To its credit, the company has often modified its products based on such feedback. As the pioneer in a huge new market, Facebook will take heat for everything it does. It has also now grown into a $22 billion company run by adults who know that their future depends on Facebook users trusting the site's privacy policy.

But the company's attitude toward privacy, as reflected in Mark's early emails and IMs, features like Beacon and Instant Personalization, and the frequent changes to the privacy policy, has been consistently aggressive: Do something first, then see how people react.

And this does appear to reflect Mark's own views of privacy, which seem to be that people shouldn't care about it as much as they do -- an attitude that very much reflects the attitude of his generation.

After all, here's what early Facebook engineering boss, Harvard alum, and Zuckerberg confidant Charlie Cheever said in David Kirkpatrick's brilliantly-reported upcoming book The Facebook Effect.

"I feel Mark doesn't believe in privacy that much, or at least believes in privacy as a stepping stone. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong."

Again in Kirkpatrick's book, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg puts it this way:

"Mark really does believe very much in transparency and the vision of an open society and open world, and so he wants to push people that way. I think he also understands that the way to get there is to give people granular control and comfort. He hopes you'll get more open, and he's kind of happy to help you get there. So for him, it's more of a means to an end. For me, I'm not as sure."

Facebook declined to comment about Mark's attitude toward privacy.

Zuckerberg's "Open World" means no privacy, as feedback-control systems work best across networks when resistance to information-flow is minimal.

[don]

Re: NSA monitoring all Verizon users

Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including figures on US collection

The National Security Agency has developed a powerful tool for recording and analysing where its intelligence comes from, raising questions about its repeated assurances to Congress that it cannot keep track of all the surveillance it performs on American communications.

The Guardian has acquired top-secret documents about the NSA datamining tool, called Boundless Informant, that details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks.

The focus of the internal NSA tool is on counting and categorizing the records of communications, known as metadata, rather than the content of an email or instant message.

The Boundless Informant documents show the agency collecting almost 3 billion pieces of intelligence from US computer networks over a 30-day period ending in March 2013. One document says it is designed to give NSA officials answers to questions like, "What type of coverage do we have on country X" in "near real-time by asking the SIGINT [signals intelligence] infrastructure."

An NSA factsheet about the program, acquired by the Guardian, says: "The tool allows users to select a country on a map and view the metadata volume and select details about the collections against that country."

Under the heading "Sample use cases", the factsheet also states the tool shows information including: "How many records (and what type) are collected against a particular country."

A snapshot of the Boundless Informant data, contained in a top secret NSA "global heat map" seen by the Guardian, shows that in March 2013 the agency collected 97bn pieces of intelligence from computer networks worldwide.



The heat map reveals how much data is being collected from around the world. Note the '2007' date in the image relates to the document from which the interactive map derives its top secret classification, not to the map itself.

Iran was the country where the largest amount of intelligence was gathered, with more than 14bn reports in that period, followed by 13.5bn from Pakistan. Jordan, one of America's closest Arab allies, came third with 12.7bn, Egypt fourth with 7.6bn and India fifth with 6.3bn.

The heatmap gives each nation a color code based on how extensively it is subjected to NSA surveillance. The color scheme ranges from green (least subjected to surveillance) through yellow and orange to red (most surveillance).

The disclosure of the internal Boundless Informant system comes amid a struggle between the NSA and its overseers in the Senate over whether it can track the intelligence it collects on American communications. The NSA's position is that it is not technologically feasible to do so.

At a hearing of the Senate intelligence committee In March this year, Democratic senator Ron Wyden asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
"No sir," replied Clapper.

Judith Emmel, an NSA spokeswoman, told the Guardian in a response to the latest disclosures: "NSA has consistently reported – including to Congress – that we do not have the ability to determine with certainty the identity or location of all communicants within a given communication. That remains the case."

Other documents seen by the Guardian further demonstrate that the NSA does in fact break down its surveillance intercepts which could allow the agency to determine how many of them are from the US. The level of detail includes individual IP addresses.

IP address is not a perfect proxy for someone's physical location but it is rather close, said Chris Soghoian, the principal technologist with the Speech Privacy and Technology Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If you don't take steps to hide it, the IP address provided by your internet provider will certainly tell you what country, state and, typically, city you are in," Soghoian said.

That approximation has implications for the ongoing oversight battle between the intelligence agencies and Congress.
On Friday, in his first public response to the Guardian's disclosures this week on NSA surveillance, Barack Obama said that that congressional oversight was the American peoples' best guarantee that they were not being spied on.

"These are the folks you all vote for as your representatives in Congress and they are being fully briefed on these programs," he said. Obama also insisted that any surveillance was "very narrowly circumscribed".

Senators have expressed their frustration at the NSA's refusal to supply statistics. In a letter to NSA director General Keith Alexander in October last year, senator Wyden and his Democratic colleague on the Senate intelligence committee, Mark Udall, noted that "the intelligence community has stated repeatedly that it is not possible to provide even a rough estimate of how many American communications have been collected under the Fisa Amendments Act, and has even declined to estimate the scale of this collection."

At a congressional hearing in March last year, Alexander denied point-blank that the agency had the figures on how many Americans had their electronic communications collected or reviewed. Asked if he had the capability to get them, Alexander said: "No. No. We do not have the technical insights in the United States." He added that "nor do we do have the equipment in the United States to actually collect that kind of information".

Soon after, the NSA, through the inspector general of the overall US intelligence community, told the senators that making such a determination would jeopardize US intelligence operations – and might itself violate Americans' privacy.

"All that senator Udall and I are asking for is a ballpark estimate of how many Americans have been monitored under this law, and it is disappointing that the inspectors general cannot provide it," Wyden told Wired magazine at the time.

The documents show that the team responsible for Boundless Informant assured its bosses that the tool is on track for upgrades.

The team will "accept user requests for additional functionality or enhancements," according to the FAQ acquired by the Guardian. "Users are also allowed to vote on which functionality or enhancements are most important to them (as well as add comments). The BOUNDLESSINFORMANT team will periodically review all requests and triage according to level of effort (Easy, Medium, Hard) and mission impact (High, Medium, Low)."

Emmel, the NSA spokeswoman, told the Guardian: "Current technology simply does not permit us to positively identify all of the persons or locations associated with a given communication (for example, it may be possible to say with certainty that a communication traversed a particular path within the internet. It is harder to know the ultimate source or destination, or more particularly the identity of the person represented by the TO:, FROM: or CC: field of an e-mail address or the abstraction of an IP address).

"Thus, we apply rigorous training and technological advancements to combine both our automated and manual (human) processes to characterize communications – ensuring protection of the privacy rights of the American people. This is not just our judgment, but that of the relevant inspectors general, who have also reported this."

She added: "The continued publication of these allegations about highly classified issues, and other information taken out of context, makes it impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion on the merits of these programs."

Additional reporting: James Ball in New York and Spencer Ackerman in Washington

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013... box:Position1