backtop

Internet Binary Heroes: Big Brother's Big Ears
Rob Mach (Blog) - November 12, 2007 12:25 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Nov 14 at 3:22 PM
'

 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Whoopie
By thejez on 11/12/2007 12:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure this is a huge deal... I've always assumed everything I did on the PUBLIC internet was viewable by anyone anyway.... if i want privacy online i use encryption...




RE: Whoopie
By aharris on 11/12/2007 12:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I'd rely on encryption alone to keep my data safe in this case.

Secure browsers that bounce your connection half-way across the world before hitting your destination are about the only thing I'd trust.


RE: Whoopie
By JackBeQuick on 11/12/2007 12:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
TOR, which describes exactly what youre talking about, has been proven several times over to not be a very secure implementation. A large majority of the exit nodes monitor the outbound traffic.


RE: Whoopie
By thartist on 11/12/2007 12:50:14 PM , Rating: 3
i REALLY REALLY wonder hard on why people are so frenetic about "internet privacy". Don't everyone realise that they are just a number in the mass doing what everyone else also does, which is watch news, porn, buy stuff, send love/PR/ordinary mails and stuff?

WHY DOES AVERYONE THINK THEY ARE DOING SUCH AN IMPORTANT THING THAT NEEDS THE MOST STRICT OF PRIVACIES?

Does anyone think Google and whatever sci-fi organization are spying him/her laughing at their love confessions or gay fantasies???

It's the "american panic seed". Wake up.

PD: Of course, nothing grants anyone the right to spy others.


RE: Whoopie
By FITCamaro on 11/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Whoopie
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 3
It's not just a liberal or conservative thing. What if the ISP was the one recording all those calls / Internet traffic? Are you OK with some AT&T tech browsing through your Internet history in his spare time?


RE: Whoopie
By Ringold on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Whoopie
By milomnderbnder21 on 11/12/2007 4:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Funny to actually see who always brings up the partisan aspects, generally using party affiliation as a pejorative. I come and start reading just to see how long it takes to find someone using 'liberal' in that manner.

Even more amusing when those people like to talk about how angry and offensive these 'liberals' are, and largely intimate how liberal viewpoints are destroying the country or political discourse. Such irony.

God forbid people actually respect that someone has a different viewpoint, and actually has reasons behind that viewpoint, and isn't just an incompetent for not agreeing with you.

So here, I'll reinforce your viewpoint of 'angry liberals,' even though I'm not sure I could describe myself as liberal: you, and people like you, are the problem with modern political discourse. You hate the other side, simply because they don't think like you.

Debates aren't a discussion of facts (like how government has abused its wiretapping ability, or how an administration has been shown to lie about important things and so not deserve credibility), they are composed of petty, close-minded insults.

Thanks for preventing substantive dialog about important issues.


RE: Whoopie
By FITCamaro on 11/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Whoopie
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 1:27:57 PM , Rating: 1
Quit assuming these companies are some super intelligent, benevolent entities. They aren't.


RE: Whoopie
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be so conceited as to think all big companies are out to get you.


RE: Whoopie
By Pythias on 11/12/2007 1:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
`
quote:
Because when you say a phrase like "government monitoring" to the masses, liberals fuel it to make them believe that every email you send or page browse you make is being carefully scrutinized by someone to make sure you're not doing or saying anything but the government approves.


No kidding. Like anyone would have the resources to filter out all the crap. The proof is that nobody is being carted off by the men in black, so I guess I'm still safe from teh ebil gubment conspiracy.

I'd give you a +1 but I traded all my mod votes for porn.


RE: Whoopie
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 1:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The proof is that nobody is being carted off by the men in black

That's just one extreme, and its a far one. You're telling me you can't think of any other illicit uses of this data?


RE: Whoopie
By Pythias on 11/12/2007 1:42:06 PM , Rating: 3
Spamming me with with time share pitches and penis enlargement promises?


RE: Whoopie
By FITCamaro on 11/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Whoopie
By SeeManRun on 11/12/2007 1:09:36 PM , Rating: 5
Spying on people without a reason is a form of guilty until proven innocent. Do you want to have to explain why you are reading a web page that contains materials that could be used for nefarious purposes when it is simply innocent curiosity? It is a slippery slope when you start giving up your rights; when is enough enough.


RE: Whoopie
By Oregonian2 on 11/12/2007 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 1
That means nobody would ever be guilty. Nobody can be arrested or whatever until sometime AFTER being "spied" upon, so nobody can possibly be proved guilty. The evidence couldn't be collected until after the trial where guilt was proven. Catch-22.


RE: Whoopie
By SeeManRun on 11/12/2007 7:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
It is called evidence, and unfortunately usually something does have to happen before the culprit can be caught. Otherwise it definitely is guilty until proven innocent. When someone is murdered, you look at the evidence and seek out the killer. But you cannot arrest someone without a crime (intent to murder is a crime, if it can be proven).

This wiretapping is exactly the opposite. You hope to catch someone by listening in on their conversations, and reading their email, and you may catch a few people doing nefarious things, but at what cost is the question?

People have to be given the right to commit crimes to have any freedom. This money could be better spent on preventing crime by looking at root causes and trying to fix them. Increases socioeconomic status, increased education... Remove the incentives for crime or terror, and it goes down. This is a solution to a problem that should be unacceptable to anyone that claims to enjoy freedom.


RE: Whoopie
By Oregonian2 on 11/14/2007 3:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
How is evidence collected without "spying" on someone who isn't presumed innocent? Investigation is inherently based on "spying" on a person's personal life. And unless one guesses with dead-on accuracy as to who did-it using a really good psychic, people who are innocent will be "spyed" upon. And prior to conviction, even the guilty party is an innocent person who's being "spyed" upon.

Use an example a white collar crime of electronically breaking into bank records and transferring money improperly. It's been going on for years. How is the presumed innocent culprit caught without setting up "spying"? Even if they should ONLY catch the actions of the person doing it (unlikely), they will have spyed upon someone who is not yet convicted and therefore presumed innocent. Spying upon an innocent (at the time) person -- in the gathering of evidence!


RE: Whoopie
By clovell on 11/12/2007 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
> Spying on people without a reason is a form of guilty until proven innocent.

You say that, and it sounds very bad, but I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Our legal system doesn't work like that.


RE: Whoopie
By MPE on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Whoopie
By johnnyb on 11/12/2007 4:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
i REALLY REALLY wonder hard on why people are so frenetic about "internet privacy". Don't everyone realise that they are just a number in the mass doing what everyone else also does, which is watch news, porn, buy stuff, send love/PR/ordinary mails and stuff?

You wanna know why? Because in Orwell's 1984 they controlled the public and made thought a crime via constant data mining only through video feed. They are in essence doing the same thing right now. You are writing a paper on bombs and you get flagged doing research. Then some over zealous cop of some type (probably here ATF) comes knocking on your door. However, now they don't need to have a warrant because they say exigent circumstances and come in and raid your house.

I'm not saying this is happening RIGHT now but we aren't far off. I also wanna say another thing. I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT, WITH ALL MY WILL. That would mean that I am wrong which would be wonderful because it isn't looking good for your argument.


It's Relative
By barjebus on 11/12/2007 1:28:10 PM , Rating: 5
It really boils down to this for those who don't think this is a big deal:

I propose we eliminate the need for warrants. I propose search and seizure laws be repealed, and police may search your vehicle with no just cause whatsoever, with no warrant, nothing. They can poke around your house, search through your things, tap your phone lines, intercept your cell phone messages, intercept your cell phone calls, and video tape you.

You have nothing to hide right? Why wouldn't you want all those things? They'll "keep you safe". It's not as if everything you do in life is really all THAT important. We're not CRIMINALS or anything right?

Get a life and wake up that you're handing yourselves over like sheep.




RE: It's Relative
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 1:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Good point.


RE: It's Relative
By Oregonian2 on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's Relative
By clovell on 11/12/2007 1:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Apples and Oranges. What it really boils down to is whether communications sent over a public medium are private in the same manner as what goes on in your house.


RE: It's Relative
By johnnyb on 11/12/2007 4:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
You are exactly right and 4th amendment jurisprudence has deemed them as being as important as those communications that go on in your house.

For those of you that don't know which is I'm guessing all of you who aren't lawyers or in law school. You have a 4th Amendment Privacy interest when you have 2 things: 1) a subjective expectation of privacy, and 2) society is willing to recognize that as a valid privacy interest. It has ALWAYS been considered private. This really developed during the Earl Warren period of the Supreme Court.


RE: It's Relative
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
What protections are granted to a '4th Amendment privacy interest'?


RE: It's Relative
By murray13 on 11/12/2007 2:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
So you don't want the NSA doing what they are doing?

Ok, then it's YOUR responsibility to monitor the Al-Qaeda servers that, since it's not allowed to be monitored are right here in the USA, moved every day so you don't have the time to get a warrant.

How you going to do it???

Well the only way is to monitor ALL the traffic and look for patterns.

I don't like the fact that it has to be done, but it's better than another WTC.

I have a life, and I'd like to keep it that way.


RE: It's Relative
By Noya on 11/12/2007 5:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
WTC? You believe the governments many times revised, years late, "9/11 Commission Report" that was written by Bush's cronies?

Do you believe everything you see/read/hear on news channels and newspapers that come straight from the White House PR officials?

Have you gotten any info about Al-Qaeda / 9-11 / 7/7 bombings from anywhere but what's fed to us by the US and British media? Opiate for the masses...


RE: It's Relative
By Pythias on 11/12/2007 5:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Good point... so why should we believe...oh...say...you?


RE: It's Relative
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
lol.


Stupidity
By johnnyb on 11/12/2007 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
I will explain something because it seems that people are vehemently justifying the NSA's and ATT's conduct. There is something called the 4th Amendment and I wouldn't expect 99% of the morons in this country to understand it cause they have no knowledge about the law whatsoever. They just think that they do. The government can't do this. They need to have some type of articulable suspicion and it must be reasonable. That is just to put a pen registry tap on your line under FISA. That merely records which number called which number and for how long. What the NSA and ATT are doing is deep packet inspection which is a hell of a lot more intrusive on your personal liberties than a mere pen registry.

Next comes the foolish argument of "Well I have nothing to hide so who cares". I love this one. I also suppose that the original commentator has not read 1984 either as he sounds like a bundle of intelligence. I have news for you people. It is only a matter of time before thought becomes a crime and this is the first step right here. Let these people get away with these crimes and we will have much more intrusive searches in the future.

I will never understand how this land of sheep can sit by and watch our government spy on us. Oh wait, I know why? NBC, CBS, FOX, etc. said that we are not safe and our stupid color terror scheme has gone up a notch right? Any of you that feel any less safe than 10 years ago need to go to a shrink and get diagnosed because I have a news flash for you. We're just fine here and we don't need to give a tyrannical government any more power than they already have. Oh yeah then again why not right, you people don't even know what the Constitution says.




RE: Stupidity
By johnnyb on 11/12/2007 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
oh yeah and to those people that are talking about a warrant and how long it takes to get one. Lemme guess, you don't even know how to get a warrant. You're most likely repeating the BS that you heard on the news. I hate to tell all you people but getting a warrant is super easy and it doesn't take any time either. You can call up the magistrate or judge depending on the type of warrant and request it. To get any electronic warrant it must go through FISA unless there is an exigent circumstance. The only reason for a clog up in the process is some lazy official who is getting paid way too much and doesn't feel like doing paperwork.

I'm sorry but I choose more paperwork and more freedom because any of you who think that we live in a free country need to do a little bit of research. Americans will be blindly waiving the flag until the ship is completely underwater.


RE: Stupidity
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 3:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have a public papertrail documenting a rubber-stamp warrant process than a secret agency wiretapping and auditting whatever they want, with no papertrail. Even if the NSA is doing a "good job" of protecting our rights internally (not that we would ever know), the fact that nobody is accountable is what makes this dangerous.


RE: Stupidity
By GeorgeOrwell on 11/12/2007 3:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
They are not called 'we the sheeple' without good reason.

I urge you to worry not about the masses. They are dull brutes, not capable of thinking of much beyond basic biological body functions. Contrary to public belief, there is no hope to be found in the proles.

Certainly it takes some effort, some will to stop identifying with stupid people. You may even want the best for them. But remember that fundamental law of the universe: You get what you deserve. So the sheeple get cages, cameras, robots who shear them, etc. That is right for they are sheeple, not free men.

If you do not want these things, then you will need to become something else other than worker cattle. It is a test, a measure, of your intelligence and capability to see if you can escape from the sophisticated prison that you were born into.

As for the reality of 'spying' on people... in the history of the United States, many types of low cost workers have been brought into the country to drive labor costs down. Today many of these workers are from cultures that are corrupt, criminal, and extremely violent. In previous eras, most of these low cost workers would not have been considered 'civilised'. So there is a real need to keep an eye on them. Anyone who does not see this need needs to get outside a bit more and look at the gangs, the crime, the murders, that occur because of the influx of cheaper labor.

In the bigger picture, realize that the US is a fading empire on its download spiral towards death. The barbarians roam the country with impunity. The soldiers fight in foreign lands, taking control of resources that can be used as collateral for more loans. The citizens are an inter-bred horde of retarded mongrels. There is nothing worth saving, nothing worth caring about. Get your share of the meat from this dying carcass and take care of your own tomorrow.


RE: Stupidity
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/12/2007 3:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
That's some scary shit dude. M13 and whatnot are problems, but classifying entire cultures as mongrels kind of makes you sound like a neo-Nazi.


RE: Stupidity
By johnnyb on 11/12/2007 4:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, not at all my fellow poster not at all. I am just concerned that our country has taken a serious turn for the worst. I am in the midst of a con law course in law school and am amazed how far recent administrations have deviated from the separation of powers model. It has happen through delegations of rule making authority from Congress to the executive branch headed by the President.

The problem is that when you get an unintelligent President who has no respect for what the Constitution mandates the country goes to crap. People keep re electing the same types of individuals and it never ceases to amaze. Thats all, it was a bit of an out lash because of frustration. Hopefully we all start thinking outside of the box or posterity is in trouble. It isn't so much what the current administration is doing with the power, rather it what future administrations will do with the precedent of tolerance from the other branches and the people. Dude, as to your mongrel analysis I don't agree. I will say that people keep electing politicians that create these abominations of justice such as this mess that ATT and the NSA have created and it certainly takes a majority to elect them. That equates to a ton of people. That is if we assume that the elections aren't rigged in some way. But assuming that they aren't people think they are informed to elect an executive or politician when they don't even know what his job is.


RE: Stupidity
By johnnyb on 11/12/2007 4:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
SOrry I thought you said I called someone a mongrel guess I read the post wrong. Whoops :P


RE: Stupidity
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/12/2007 5:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
No worries. My post was directed to GeorgeOrwell.


RE: Stupidity
By clovell on 11/12/2007 4:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
For all your allusive rhetoric, you cite neither facts nor examples. Anyone who disagrees with you is referred to as a 'sheeple', someone who needs to 'get outside a bit more', part of 'an inter-bre horde of retarded mongrels', not worth 'saving or caring about'.

That sounds an awful lot like an extremist religion.


RE: Stupidity
By Pythias on 11/12/2007 5:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The citizens are an inter-bred horde of retarded mongrels. There is nothing worth saving, nothing worth caring about. Get your share of the meat from this dying carcass and take care of your own tomorrow.


Someone missed his nappy time today.


RE: Stupidity
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
lol - if I could rate you up!


Eh?
By 3kliksphilip on 11/12/2007 12:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I don't quite get it. I thought this was a news site.




RE: Eh?
By TheDiceman on 11/12/2007 12:43:11 PM , Rating: 3
The political/technological commentary comics started a few weeks ago. Frankly, I kind of like it.


RE: Eh?
By peldor on 11/12/2007 12:50:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The political/technological commentary comics started a few weeks ago.

When do the funny commentary comics start?


RE: Eh?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/12/2007 1:06:26 PM , Rating: 3
As soon as you pass english comprehension.


RE: Eh?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/12/2007 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Damn missing edit button, meant to preview and not post, anyway, the end of that statement was suppose to also say: or when you find your sense of humour.


RE: Eh?
By peldor on 11/12/2007 1:58:46 PM , Rating: 3
See. Now you are funny. Can you draw?


RE: Eh?
By JackBeQuick on 11/12/2007 12:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
Rasterized and printed on my wall. I like how they dropped the text at the bottom.


This really bothers me.
By RjBass on 11/12/2007 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'm not a liberal and I'm not a conservative. I tend to not really lean in either direction. I vote for whomever I believe has the best answers, be it republican, democrat, libertarian, independent etc...

Someone else above said this is an issue being blown out of proportion by the liberals. While it is true the die hard liberals can and sometime do blow things out of proportion, I don't think they are with this.

We can argue that what the NSA is looking at is no big deal. Half of what we do on the web (if not more) is already being looked at by others.

Personally I look at tech sites, porn, Youtube and whatever I just happen to browse into.

If the NSA were to start looking at my data, other then some hot Asians in tiny thongs, they probably won't see to much.

But does that mean I want them looking? Hell no. It's not that they most likely won't see even half of what people are looking at, it's not that people don't have anything to hide. It's the fact that they are being allowed to do it.

Where are our rights? Isn't there a constitution that is supposed to safe guard against this?

If we just roll over and say this is no big deal, then where does it end? Do we just keep rolling over every time the government decides to trample on another one of our rights as US citizens?

Every year the citizens of the US loose more of their constitutional rights. Every year we become less "free". But yet we still run around here saying we are "free". Whatever.

The US has more people in it's prisons per capita then any other nation on the planet. I don't call that "free".

You all who live in the US and don't think this is a big deal and roll over and play dead if you want to. But not me. I'm going to write my representatives. I'm going to spread this news around. I'm going to make sure people know.

I don't care who sees what porn I'm looking at, so long as it isn't the government. They don't have the right to.




RE: This really bothers me.
By clovell on 11/12/2007 2:35:19 PM , Rating: 3
> The US has more people in it's prisons per capita then any other nation on the planet. I don't call that "free".

It also has a higher crime rate per capita than most other nations - you should be glad those criminals are in prison rather than on the street - I imagine the latter would compromise your freedom much more than the former.

> I don't care who sees what porn I'm looking at, so long as it isn't the government.
DT should add this quote to the ones at the bottom of every page.


RE: This really bothers me.
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 2:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also has a higher crime rate per capita than most other nations

There's two reasons for this.

1.) Our police forces are actually partially competent. Can't say the same for Russia, Thailand, Africa, etc.
2.) Drug crime (Marijuana, specifically) that is essentially ignored in the rest of the world is prosecuted to the fullest in the US.


RE: This really bothers me.
By GeorgeOrwell on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: This really bothers me.
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
The single largest and most significant predictor of whether a person will have a criminal record is the presence of that person's father in their childhood - not race.

There needs to be a massive expansion of Paternal Accountability, not FUD.


RE: This really bothers me.
By Pythias on 11/12/2007 5:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hear, by golly hear!


Sorry but no
By FITCamaro on 11/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sorry but no
By JackBeQuick on 11/12/2007 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The NSA's primary job is not to spy on Americans

Then why are they?


RE: Sorry but no
By FITCamaro on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sorry but no
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I listen to your phone call by sitting next to you, am I spying on you?

Can I log all of your phone conversations in secret and store them in an unlabeled room at your ISP? Cause that's what the NSA is doing and all...
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+Monitors+All+Web+Traf...

I personally couldn't care less if anyone monitors my calls. However, the U.S. is not some hyper-competent entity, as evidenced by Mr. Bush. That information will get compromised someday -- and take it from me I used to work in Internet research for this country.


RE: Sorry but no
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2007 1:52:47 PM , Rating: 4
> "Can I log all of your phone conversations in secret and store them in an unlabeled room at your ISP? Cause that's what the NSA is doing and all...

No. IF they're doing anything (and remember, that "if" depends solely on the world of one retired technician) they're monitoring packet data only. Internet communications-- web and email. VOIP potentially, if you use it.

But despite all the hype in the press, there's no means of logging "all the phone calls" in one small room. AT&T's database of just the call record itself (the timestamp and who the call was made to and from) is the largest database in the world, and the hardware to store it is far larger than you're going to fit in a rack in one small room off a POP. The actual call contents itself would be several orders of magnitude larger, and would be wholly impossible to log in any way, shape, or form.

The NSA can't possibly be logging all internet traffic either. Again, if they're doing anything, they have to be doing realtime semantic analysis and logging only the 0.0001% of data that throws some sort of alarm bell.


RE: Sorry but no
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
It was my understanding that this traffic was being sent to these closed rooms, which was then being parsed and sent elsewhere.


RE: Sorry but no
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2007 3:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
But you can't just "send it elsewhere", not the full amount of data, at least. That's the whole reason these fiber hubs exist...they're required to handle the bandwidth requirements.

So if anything is being logged, its a tiny fraction of the total packet data, and none of the POTS (voice) calls.


RE: Sorry but no
By Pythias on 11/12/2007 1:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Precisely, that's a phenomenal amount of data to be analyzed. I just can't see how they'd pull it off.


RE: Sorry but no
By teckytech9 on 11/13/2007 1:13:32 AM , Rating: 3
IMHO the CDR (Call Detail Records) were being extrapolated and analyzed in real-time for pattern analysis. There is nothing that I know of that can record everything in an OC-48 to an OC-192 backbone pipe, (not to mention DWDM on the edges) bit by bit into a physical hardware apparatus in real-time.

Lets say hypothetically that packet data inspection was looking for source and destinations IP's and voice calls once packetized into SONET, was extrapolating SS7 point code information on a per call basis. Once these fields are populated, then an enhanced CDR could be created in real-time.

CDR's were usually sent by mag-tape for processing (old days) until FTPing files was possible. Merging this CDR data with the IP data for real-time pattern analysis seems only logical, in my opinion.


RE: Sorry but no
By RandallMoore on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sorry but no
By JackBeQuick on 11/12/2007 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
Having a record of call history is called best practices, not spying. This is what was done in the incident with your high school.

Recording the call, transcribing it, logging it and putting it into a database is spying, not best practices. This is what is being done by the NSA.


RE: Sorry but no
By RandallMoore on 11/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sorry but no
By FITCamaro on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sorry but no
By JackBeQuick on 11/12/2007 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly, but that's a horrible justification. "I'm not important enough to spy on, so I'm OK giving the government access to this kind of data."

I'm a realist though. These sort of powers have been abused before -- it's not like this sort of topic magically generates all sorts of controversy because its a "liberal" thing.

How many cases are there of corporate bosses spying on their employees "for fun and profit" using less sophisticated versions of this? I can think of a few hundred.

And look at other cases of absolute wiretapping in this country. Martin Luther King? McCarthyism? Any of this ring a bell to you?

Maybe the NSA learned from those mistakes, and maybe they deserve that access. However, I suspect I'm a little bit older than you, and I have a pretty good memory of previous infractions.


RE: Sorry but no
By knowyourenemy on 11/12/2007 2:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know, its pointless to argue with people like you. You're going to believe the government is out to spy on you regardless of what the facts are.


Who the hell are you to preach what the facts are? It is your viewpoint over another. Sorry, but no. You may be right, you may be wrong, and I might sympathize with what you're saying, but don't BS us. It is tiring.


RE: Sorry but no
By Polynikes on 11/12/2007 4:07:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When you've had armed officers come through your door as a result of federal agents monitoring your web connection as I have, we'll talk. Until then.

Don't you understand? If you're not guilty of anything, at that point, [b]it's too late.[/b] Your rights are gone and you're getting screwed by a government who doesn't care about that little thing we call liberty.

Keeping the NSA's practices in check are a means of preventing that kind of situation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Don't forget that.

The important thing is not that they're spying, it's that they were (maybe still are) doing it without warrants. I don't mind that they have the ability to monitor what I say online or over the phone, it's necessary to have that to use to fight crime or terrorism. But when they act on this information without another branch of the government saying "Yeah, this looks like a valid reason to arrest them, go ahead," it's tyranny. Why do you think we have checks and balances?


RE: Sorry but no
By NicePants42 on 11/13/2007 9:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The important thing is not that they're spying, it's that they were (maybe still are) doing it without warrants. I don't mind that they have the ability to monitor what I say online or over the phone, it's necessary to have that to use to fight crime or terrorism. But when they act on this information without another branch of the government saying "Yeah, this looks like a valid reason to arrest them, go ahead," it's tyranny. Why do you think we have checks and balances?
I agree with the sentiment of this paragraph, however in your own example, you appear to be arguing against the warrantless data parsing that would provide the justification for a warrant for further action.

I realize that government monitoring is a slippery slope, but I think it's one we have to try to navigate. Otherwise we are allowing worry-free communication to those who would kill us.


RE: Sorry but no
By Polynikes on 11/13/2007 6:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind the data parsing. I'm confident the government geek who checks any data that throws up a flag can tell the difference between me saying "They set up us the bomb" and another sentence with the word bomb in it that originated from an IP address in Syria coming into the US. (Hopefully he'll probably get a laugh out of it.) I don't have a problem with that. It's when the government ACTS on that keyword that the potential for serious tyranny arises. As long as I don't have to worry about saying something like "President Bush needs to die," there's no problem. But when the government starts arresting anyone that says something like that, there's a bit of a problem.

(Just to clarify, I don't think Bush needs to die, however there are perhaps some people who don't like him enough to say something like that with some degree of seriousness, but wouldn't actually attempt it themselves. Neither those people nor myself really deserve to be arrested, it's when there's an actual plan in place to do it that the government should act.)


RE: Sorry but no
By johnnyb on 11/12/2007 4:22:03 PM , Rating: 1
fitcamaro you're stupid; go live in China


RE: Sorry but no
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2007 6:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Such a compelling counter.


RE: Sorry but no
By Pythias on 11/12/2007 6:41:13 PM , Rating: 3
johnnyb, put the reynold's wrap down and back slowly away from the internet.


RE: Sorry but no
By Oregonian2 on 11/12/2007 1:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
Then it's just a matter of definition of "best practices". The NSA has it's "best practices" manual, and they follow it. So they don't spy, they just do "best practices".

Calling something "best practices" is just a way of somehow justifying spying, or to deny that spying can be a good thing or necessary.

Some spying is justified, some is not. Changing the name of that which is justified and acceptable doesn't make it not spying.


RE: Sorry but no
By CrimsonFrost on 11/12/2007 1:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
So if you throw words like "shoot", "bomb" or "assassinate" into a conversation you get flagged... Seems silly to me.


RE: Sorry but no
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2007 3:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
Potentially yes. It's not like every email though that has those words in it gets flagged. They're looking for a pattern of words. If you type a sentence like "Did you hear about the assassination attempt today?" or "Hey, what year was this assassination?", its doubtful it'll get flagged.

If you type a sentence like "The assassination is set for tomorrow." then you might get flagged. But the reality is no one who's actually planning something like that is actually going to say it that clearly. They're going to use code words. The NSA is scanning for patterns that they've identified are likely ways terrorists might talk to each other. It's all vastly more complicated than the majority of us will ever understand. You'd have to probably be an expert in linguistics and pattern analysis to make sense of it.

If you really want to find out, get a buddy in the middle east via facebook and send him an email saying you're going to do something. See what happens. Me personally, I'd rather not. Having armed men bust into my apartment once was enough for me...


RE: Sorry but no
By sweetsauce on 11/12/2007 5:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
So because you had that happen to you once, you rather just bend over and hand the gov your personal vaseline for them to sodomize you? You're a defeated sad person and i pity you and your way of thinking. Don't even bother trying to fight my opinion, since what i say goes and your opinion doesn't matter.


RE: Sorry but no
By Jrouss on 11/12/2007 6:25:17 PM , Rating: 3
For all you who need to defend the governments illeagal use of spying to keep us "safe", read these words. If you don't understand them be quite and let those of us who do defend your right to be free and "safe".

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight'
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen, thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream;
'Tis the star-spangled banner: oh, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that has made and preserved us as a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust";
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


RE: Sorry but no
By clovell on 11/13/2007 3:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not so sure how your mandate for people with the opposite viewpoint to be quiet squares with our National Anthem....


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki