You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

gore wrote:
Robear wrote:

Probably literally true. They didn't get to the servers. That's why we need more oversight on these guys. The tech capabilities have expanded faster than the cost-benefit analyses for what we can do. And the extreme secrecy prevents a national conversation on the subject.

That's why people like Ed are necessary, periodically.

Basically, you need to read between the lines on any NSA / Obama denials. They don't normally outright lie, but they do use the narrowest possible definitions of terms.

So when they say "we never accessed their servers directly" that should be assumed to mean "we have accessed all of their infrastructure directly except their servers," etc.

The quite probably 100% accurate "we don't spy on the German Chancellor now and we won't in the future" line from last week is a great example.

A nice redirect from that "oh, the past? Yeah, we were abso-f*cking-lutely listening to all her phone calls in the past" behind the curtain.

Malor wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Malor wrote:

Are you for real? I mean, seriously?

That's exactly what I was thinking regarding you when you intentionally twisted what I was saying in my last two posts in this thread.

What on bloody earth are you talking about?

Intentionally twisted? WTF?

Let me rephrase:

Either you were intentionally ignoring my obvious intent (speaking to what should happen in an ideal world, implying the way the US should operate, which would obviously include not having a retaliatory killing on Snowden after a Presidential pardon), or you're not the smart guy that I know you are.

I get very frustrated when you ignore the clear intent of what someone says in order to twist what they say into a stick to beat your drum with.

Zelos wrote:
NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander said, "I can tell you factually we do not have access to Google servers [or] Yahoo servers."

Slimy bastard.

The problem here is what the question is (or in this case what he chose to answer/say). Outside a few people who really understand the ins and outs of specific systems technology has created a situation where people like congress can ask many well meaning questions and get the wrong impresson because of specific wording.

Did you access the email on their computer
NO
Did you access the email on their email server
NO
Tech: Did you through any means view or record the contents of their email
umm. Yes.

It's like a lawyer not knowing what to ask and then getting misleading answers.

realityhack wrote:

Did you access the email on their computer
NO
Did you access the email on their email server
NO
Tech: Did you through any means view or record the contents of their email
umm. Yes.

Interestingly, it's reminiscent of the episode of Trek I saw last night, "Clues", where Picard is questioning Data and Data's responses are either cleverly evasive, or simply "I cannot answer that question."

NSA files decoded. What the revelations mean for you.

The Guardian

EVERYTHING, distilled. This is the single best source to read about everything that has happened since this all started. Great for filling in gaps and for those who haven't kept up all the time.

Edwin wrote:

NSA files decoded. What the revelations mean for you.

The Guardian

EVERYTHING, distilled. This is the single best source to read about everything that has happened since this all started. Great for filling in gaps and for those who haven't kept up all the time.

It's also a neat little bit of web programming.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BX5bpOICEAAs_Pm.jpg:large)

Minarchist wrote:
Edwin wrote:

NSA files decoded. What the revelations mean for you.

The Guardian

EVERYTHING, distilled. This is the single best source to read about everything that has happened since this all started. Great for filling in gaps and for those who haven't kept up all the time.

It's also a neat little bit of web programming. :)

Yup. A showcase for the "new media". THIS is the future of newspapers.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Minarchist wrote:
Edwin wrote:

NSA files decoded. What the revelations mean for you.

The Guardian

EVERYTHING, distilled. This is the single best source to read about everything that has happened since this all started. Great for filling in gaps and for those who haven't kept up all the time.

It's also a neat little bit of web programming. :)

Yup. A showcase for the "new media". THIS is the future of newspapers.

Indeed, sad how much they're struggling financially despite that.

UK government has now explicitly equated journalism with terrorism.

UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism'

Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, was detained and questioned for nine hours by British authorities at Heathrow on August 18, when he landed there from Berlin to change planes for a flight to Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.

After his release and return to Rio, Miranda filed a legal action against the British government, seeking the return of materials seized from him by British authorities and a judicial review of the legality of his detention.

At a London court hearing this week for Miranda's lawsuit, a document called a "Ports Circulation Sheet" was read into the record. It was prepared by Scotland Yard - in consultation with the MI5 counterintelligence agency - and circulated to British border posts before Miranda's arrival. The precise date of the document is unclear.

"Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security," according to the document.

"We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives," the document continued. "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..."

BadKen wrote:

UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism'

"Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government..."

So in the UK it's now illegal to report on political news? "We now return to our 24/7 news coverage of Sammy the Water-Skiing Squirrel".

From local examples, this event could presage a move to begin faction-based extra judicial extermination of journalists who are not protected by powerful people, especially when the things they say are not in lockstep with the government.

BadKen wrote:

UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism'

"Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government..."

Remember, Remember, the first of November!

More current and former NSA employees have stepped forward in the months since Ed did.

But the legal threats and high-level condemnation haven’t kept others from coming forward with new information, Radack said.

“There definitely could be more revelations in addition to those that Snowden has revealed and that are continuing to come out,” she told ABC News.

Either you were intentionally ignoring my obvious intent

I was replying to your comment. You know, just like everyone else does? I realize that you don't want those things to happen. What I'm trying to say that I don't think those things are likely, that Snowden is a dead man if the NSA or CIA can manage it. You can wish whatever you like, and I don't disagree at all that they're nice wishes, but I do not think they are realistic.

This has nothing to do with twisting anything, and if you think it does, that's because you're still pissed about the football thread.

Meanwhile, Bruce Schneier has put up two really good posts lately:

NSA Eavesdropping on Google and Yahoo Networks, in which he points out:

In light of this, PRISM is really just insurance: a way for the NSA to get legal cover for information it already has. My guess is that the NSA collects the vast majority of its data surreptitiously, using programs such as these. Then, when it has to share the information with the FBI or other organizations, it gets it again through a more public program like PRISM.

And then this set of deeper musings, The Battle for Power on the Internet:

I have previously characterized this model of computing as "feudal." Users pledge their allegiance to more powerful companies who, in turn, promise to protect them from both sysadmin duties and security threats. It's a metaphor that's rich in history and in fiction, and a model that's increasingly permeating computing today.

Medieval feudalism was a hierarchical political system, with obligations in both directions. Lords offered protection, and vassals offered service. The lord-peasant relationship was similar, with a much greater power differential. It was a response to a dangerous world.

Feudal security consolidates power in the hands of the few. Internet companies, like lords before them, act in their own self-interest. They use their relationship with us to increase their profits, sometimes at our expense. They act arbitrarily. They make mistakes. They're deliberately -- and incidentally -- changing social norms. Medieval feudalism gave the lords vast powers over the landless peasants; we're seeing the same thing on the Internet.

That second essay is especially worth reading.

Malor wrote:
Either you were intentionally ignoring my obvious intent

I was replying to your comment. You know, just like everyone else does? I realize that you don't want those things to happen. What I'm trying to say that I don't think those things are likely, that Snowden is a dead man if the NSA or CIA can manage it. You can wish whatever you like, and I don't disagree at all that they're nice wishes, but I do not think they are realistic.

Intentionally ignoring my obvious intent then. As I said.

Malor wrote:

This has nothing to do with twisting anything, and if you think it does, that's because you're still pissed about the football thread.

Actually, I'd forgotten about that. I was thinking about the SimCity thread where you were up to the same antics as this one and the football thread you brought up.

Malor wrote:

And then this set of deeper musings, The Battle for Power on the Internet

Indeed, that was well worth reading (I skimmed for now, will take a more thorough read later). Thank you for sharing the link!

Intentionally ignoring my obvious intent then. As I said.

I was making an observation. This was not "twisting your words", it was saying that, whatever you want in the matter, it's not going to happen.

Malor wrote:
Intentionally ignoring my obvious intent then. As I said.

I was making an observation. This was not "twisting your words", it was saying that, whatever you want in the matter, it's not going to happen.

It's an impasse I won't belabor further. I'd respectfully ask that in the future, if you're going to ignore the context of what I'm saying, then just like the title of the Sim City thread says, "OK Malor, we get it. Enough already."

I invite you, most enthusiastically, to put me on ignore.

Malor wrote:

I invite you, most enthusiastically, to put me on ignore.

What's worse, being forced to tell people to ignore your BS, or the fact that you brag about annoying folks in your location?

eh, nevermind. That's just Jayhawker doing his thing.

BadKen wrote:

UK government has now explicitly equated journalism with terrorism.

UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism'

I find your slippery slope argument unconvincing. Our government would never redefine terrorism to "anyone who opposes us, or even just embarrasses us".

Oh wait.

Time for a blast from the past... At least I really hope all of that behavior has really stopped.

Yonder wrote:

I really hope all of that behavior has really stopped.

Haaaaha ha ha! Stopped? Oh you're just so precious!

Techdirt's writeup on that latest UK insanity is worth reading.

The UK government's argument that Miranda is a terrorist:

Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security," according to the document.

"We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives," the document continued. "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..."

Techdirt's take (their boldface):

Read that again and let it sink in. UK officials are arguing that if you have any material which, if disclosed, might "influence a government," you are, by definition, a terrorist.

Yep, carrying information that might influence the government is terrorism, and totally justifies whatever treatment they decide to dish out to the enemy of the state.

In OrwellReality, whistleblowers are terrorists.

The UK has always had an overbearing approach to it's intelligence; their Official Secrets Act is pretty draconian and has been around for a long time. As I've noted before, they are further along the path than the US, in large part due to that kind of legislation and approach to security.

Three Leaks, Three Weeks, and What We've Learned About the US Government's Other Spying Authority: Executive Order 12333 [EFF]

A Washington Post article reveals that the National Security Agency has been siphoning off data from the links between Yahoo and Google data centers, which include the fiber optic connections between company servers at various points around the world. While the user may have an encrypted connection to the website, the internal data flows were not encrypted and allowed the NSA to obtain millions of records each month, including both metadata and content like audio, video and text. This is not part of the PRISM collection under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act or the business records program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, but a separate program called MUSCULAR under what appears to be Executive Order 12333 ("12333").

In a bit of irony re: Glenn Greenwald's choice of home nation -
Brazil Admits It Spied On U.S. Diplomats

Maybe we should all turn our computers into spam bots and see if the NSA has a buffer overflow bug.