backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Dec 6 at 12:23 PM


  (Source: AP)
Meanwhile Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! are forced to treat U.S. gov't efforts like a cybercrime

The latest leak concerning the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) by ex-contractor-turned-criminally charged whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals a new height to NSA voyeurism.

I. Dirty Deeds and Social Engineering

The freshly leaked document has been published in The Huffington Post by Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden's confidante.  Mr. Greenwald -- a British citizen who primarily writes for The Guardian -- has been harassed for reporting on the leaked material.  British intelligence agents have destroyed hard drives from Mr. Greenwald and harassed his loved ones, but these intimidation tactics have failed to shut him up.

The newly leaked agency memo offers new details on an ambitious NSA social engineering program.  The effort is designed to carefully monitor and scrutinize online behavior of certain individuals, logging certain activities in an attempt to discredit them.  The six "exemplars" listed in the document are all described as radical Muslims.  

Taliban Muslims
The claimed target of the social engineering campaign was radical Muslims.
[Image Source: Getty Images]

Mr. Greenwald and his co-columnists describe these individuals stating:

One target's offending argument is that "Non-Muslims are a threat to Islam," and a vulnerability listed against him is "online promiscuity." Another target, a foreign citizen the NSA describes as a "respected academic," holds the offending view that "offensive jihad is justified," and his vulnerabilities are listed as "online promiscuity" and "publishes articles without checking facts." A third targeted radical is described as a "well-known media celebrity" based in the Middle East who argues that "the U.S perpetrated the 9/11 attack." Under vulnerabilities, he is said to lead "a glamorous lifestyle." A fourth target, who argues that "the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself" is said to be vulnerable to accusations of “deceitful use of funds." The document expresses the hope that revealing damaging information about the individuals could undermine their perceived "devotion to the jihadist cause."

The document comes from The Director of the National Security Agency ("DIRNSA") -- presumably the office of NSA Director General Keith Alexander, who recently announced his decision to retire following the recent leaks.  Some members of Congress, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have called on Gen. Alexander to resign or be fired, as they argue he peverted the powers entrusted to the NSA to spy on Americans.

Multiple executive branch agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), were CCed on the memo, so it appears the Obama administration was aware of this program.  This is important to note as the Obama administration has tried to blame the most offensive parts of the NSA spying programs on Congress, and claimed to be unaware of these programs.  Such claims have been received with much skepticism given that it was the Obama administration which lobbied secret federal courts for restrictions on spying on Americans be lifted.

The NSA porn spying email recipients

The presentation states that "personal vulnerabilities" can be used to undermine the target's authority, credibility, and reputation.  In addition to more traditional tactics -- looking for inconsistent language used by a person in their personal communications (that the NSA has already been shown to be spying on en masse) and unscrupulous financial behavior (e.g. using public donations for personal items), the presentation also states that targets can be compromised by recording them "viewing sexually explicit material online or using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls."

The idea is to catch the targets doing the dirty, so to speak, and then somehow let that information "leak out" to target sources as part of a sophisticated social engineeering campaign.
 

Porn spying memo
(click to enlarge) [Image Source: NSA via The Huffington Post]

Such a tactic appeared to be used against infamous terrorists Osama bin Laden, where it "somehow" leaked to the press that dozens of USB sticks "filled" with pornography and jars of vasoline were found at Osama bin Laden's compound, following the U.S. deathstrike on him in May 2011.

The NSA program is believed to involve the digital equivalent of such a reputation damage campaign, curating porn viewing histories for various IPs, and then using that information to discredit targets.

II. Big Brother is Logging Your Digital Sex Life

While doing this to terrorists may sound like a welcome idea, the problem is that as with other forms of NSA spying, the NSA is believed to be mass harvesting data records, then "filtering" the data down to study the history of targets.  The NSA only considers it "spying" if it targets you with a filtered search.

But the fact is that for some unclear period your private history is floating around in agency databases, accessible by intelligence agency employees and intelligence contractors alike.  We already know that this private history the NSA has been compiling includes portions of our email and chat conversations; a log of our locations over time (as given by cell phone towers); and a list of the websites we visit.

NSA spying
The NSA is watching your adult entertainment viewing history. [Image Source: Nation of Change]
 
Now this new information suggests that the NSA may pre-filter logs of adult entertainment associated with specific IP addresses inside and outside the U.S.

The first issue with this is that it's expensive.  It appears that a major reason why Congress and the President would back such a controversial program with questionable results is because of special interest money.  

Firms like Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Comp. (BAH) (whom Mr. Snowden worked for at the time of his whistleblowing), Oracle Corp. (ORCL), received billions of dollars in handouts for these massive spying programs.  Unsurprisingly before this happened intelligence contractors had paid tens of millions of dollars to federal politicians, whom they urged to adopt these new programs for "national security".

There's no transparency, and little competition to speak of when it comes to these payouts, because contracts typically go to those who pay off politicians, not those who offer the best results.  For example Amazon.com, Inc.'s (AMZN) PAC in 2012 paid a roughly 56-74 split (D/R) of campaign cash to members of the House and 37-12 split (D/R) to members of the Senate, according to OpenSecret's numbers from its PAC.  Lo and behold in each case money went to whatever party was in control of chamber and could pass spending legislation.  According to the site's statistics Amazon claimed $2.5M USD in lobbying expenses in 2012 alone.

Congress bribes
Special interests paid tens of millions to Congress to earn spying contracts worth billions in taxpayer money. [Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]
 
A 2011 study by researchers Raquel Alexander and Susan Scholz of the University of Kansas School of Business which estimates that per $1 USD spent on lobbying a company gets back $220 USD, on average in contracts, tax breaks, grants, etc. and you get an estimated that Amazon's $2.5M USD contribution should theoretically earn it a $550M USD payoff.

Lo and behold Amazon reportedly received a $600M USD confidential contract recently to provide "data services" to the CIA.  Such payoffs for contracts, are more or less legal in America's current political system, but inevitably they leave American taxpayers footing the bill for their elected leaders's "generosity".

This means that a laundry list of all your fetishes and most private desires of you -- and potentially your significant other -- could potentially be compromised, spilling this embarassing information to employers, colleagues, friends, and family members.

III. "Just Trust Us" Versus a History of Abuse

Of course the NSA would contend that such a scenario would require an agent or contractor breaking the law.  But it already has been shown in audits that NSA agents committed at least minor violations of the law thousands of times a year.  

And historically there's evidence of even larger offenses.

J. Edgar Hoover -- former director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) -- famously harassed Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights advocates.  He also spied on public figures he suspected of being communist sympathizers or homosexuals, collecting long surveillance dossiers on them.  

Martin Luther King, Jr.Martin Luther King, Jr. was among the targets of J. Edgar Hoovers social engineering smear campaigns. [Image Source: Univ. of Nebraska]

He also allegedly compiled records of politicians extramarital affairs, using it to blackmail them.  President Richard Milhous Nixon allegedly oversaw a campaign to break into his rival party's headquarters, an effort that ultimate led him to resign in the face of almost certain impeachment.

J. Edgar Hoover
J. Edgar Hoover targeted homosexuals, leftists, and peaceful civil rights activists.

But for the Nixons and Hoovers of yesteryear, digital spying has opened the door to much cheaper, broader, and easier abuse.  J. Edgar Hoover and others of his ilk would likely salivate at the prospect of having the history of thousands of citizens accessible with a single nearly unnoticeable search query.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have been shown to have utilized intelligence agencies multiple times to try to spy on and discredit Americans involved in peaceful groups whose political views were at odds with the sitting President's own special-interest purchased perspective.

The NSA would also contend that the information it's harvesting is sanitized -- that information on non-targets is filtered out and deleted after some period of time.  Of course, it won't tell us exactly how long that period of time is, or exactly how it's trying to cleanse its data pile -- in this case porn viewing logs -- of records associated with American citizens.

Pope Francis
President Obama's NSA reportedly spied on Pope Francis. [Image Source: Think Progress]

Under President George Walker Bush (R) intelligence agencies spied on Quakers and other pro-peace groups.  President Barack Hussein Obama's (D) deputies ordered spying on the Occupy Wall Street activists who the administration believed might upset JP Morgan Chase & Comp. (JPM) and other top campaign donors.  Under his watch the NSA also reportedly spied upon Pope Francis (Benedict XVI), the leader of the Catholic Christian church.  President Obama has claimed that he was unaware of this surveillance, but he and his deputies have not commented on the program under oath.

In short, even if the porn-viewing journals that the NSA is harvesting on Americans and foreigners have yet to fall into the "wrong hands" (as far as we know), there's little evidence to support that such a leak couldn't happen in the future.

IV. Microsoft Plans Encryption to Protect Users Against NSA

Meanwhile, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), one of the largest internet software firms in America reported that it was considering new encryption efforts to protect its users following reports that the NSA tapped fiber optic cables in a program called MUSCULAR.

Google Inc. (GOOG) and Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) have already addressed the spying, acknowledging that their internal investigations indicated revealed user privacy may have been compromised without their awareness.  Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer said she feared being charged with treason if she objected to the spying.
 

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer feared being charged with treason if she pushed back against the NSA.
[Image Source: NPR].

Former Google CEO and current chairman of Google's board of directors, Eric Schmidt said that the spying was "not OK" at all with his company.  He said that Google would look to deploy to encryption protections to fight government snooping on cables.

Meanwhile Microsoft's executives met last week, according to a report in The Washington Post, the newspaper that first outed the MUSCULAR program.

Increasingly companies like Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are being forced to expand their efforts from defending against scammers and cybercriminals to defending users against scammers, cybercriminals, and the government.  Perhaps tellingly, the NSA and FBI have increasingly turned to cybercriminal tactics to seize user data, such as phishing and malware.  But where as cybercriminals and scammers are determined and clever, they typically operate on slim resources so they pose much less of a threat.

The government is posing a much more challenging threat to tech firms.  While it may not be the most clever at times, it has a seemingly endless pile of taxpayer money to throw at breaking protections and spying on citizens.

CyberCriminal
The tech community is treating the U.S. government like a superpowered cybercriminal.
[Image Source: Xpats]

And worse yet, players like Google and Microsoft have to fight against their own -- traditional tech powers like Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) and Oracle who have lobbied behind closed doors in support of increased spying, which feeds them billions in contracts.  In a sense, the tech world is in a state of digital civil war -- both against each and against the government.

The Washington Post quotes Matthew Green, a Johns Hopkins University cryptography expert, as stating, "[It's] a pretty big change in the way these companies have operated.  And it’s a big engineering effort.”"

V. Trio of Senators Call For End to NSA Data Collection in Editorial

Also last week a trio of U.S. Senators -- Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) -- ratcheted up the pressure and criticism on the NSA, writing a piece titled "End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now".

In the piece they acknowledge that given the USA PATRIOT Act and other recent measures, that the NSA's actions may fall into a newly created gray area of the law.  But they argue that the collection is inherently unconstitutional and against the spirit of the Founding Fathers.  

We The People
[Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech LLC]

They write:

THE framers of the Constitution declared that government officials had no power to seize the records of individual Americans without evidence of wrongdoing, and they embedded this principle in the Fourth Amendment. The bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records — so-called metadata — by the National Security Agency is, in our view, a clear case of a general warrant that violates the spirit of the framers’ intentions. This intrusive program was authorized under a secret legal process by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so for years American citizens did not have the knowledge needed to challenge the infringement of their privacy rights.

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person’s phone records. But this can be done without collecting the records of millions of law-abiding Americans. We recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition that those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of temporary safety will lose both and deserve neither.

The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security. In spite of our repeated requests, the N.S.A. has not provided evidence of any instance when the agency used this program to review phone records that could not have been obtained using a regular court order or emergency authorization.

They add:

There is no question that our nation’s intelligence professionals are dedicated, patriotic men and women who make real sacrifices to help keep our country safe and free. We believe that they should be able to do their jobs secure in the knowledge that their agencies have the confidence of the American people.

But this trust has been undermined by the N.S.A.’s domestic surveillance programs, as well as by senior officials’ misleading statements about surveillance. Only by ending the dragnet collection of ordinary Americans’ private information can this trust be rebuilt.

The Democratic trio is backing the "USA Freedom Act of 2013", cosponsored by Sens. Michael S. Lee (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Verm.); a bill which would reign in the NSA's Orwellian spying campaign.  

At the same time they are condemning their colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.)  "FISA Improvements Act" -- a bill which would further codify bulk data seizures by adding new language to the 50 USC § 1861.  This section of The PATRIOT Act already allows ] agents of the FBI to without warrant demand "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" from a U.S. citizen in order  "protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."  

If Sen. Feinstein has her way, the section would be amended to included allowances for the NSA, FBI, and other agencies to seize Americans' data in bulk, without individual warrants.  Under her vision, the NSA and other agencies could apply for FISA court warrants to collect anywhere from thousands of millions of Americans' data -- essentially a blank check to spy on U.S. citizens' digital lives.

Senator Ron Wyden
Sen. Wyden is pictured at an ironically named PRISM awards ceremony in 2007 -- a ceremony relating to Hollywood films that portray substance abuse.  The Democratic Senator was among 10 members of the Senate to vote against the PATRIOT Act renewal in 2006. [Image Source: Ron Wyden]

Civil liberty advocates are in the same camp as Sens. Wyden, Udall, and Heinrich.  They praise Sens. Lee and Leahy's bill as a step in the right direction, if perhaps not going far enough to roll back the PATRIOT Act and restore Constitutional protections.  At the same time they blast Sen. Feinstein's alternative as a grave assault on American freedoms.

Jennifer Granick of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS) summarizes to The Huffington Post, "The Feinstein bill is terrible and would make things worse. I think the Leahy-Sensenbrenner bill begins to address some of the problems."

Both bills will soon be debated by the U.S. Senate, having made it out of the committee phase intact.

Meanwhile the NSA is speaking out, attacking its critics, in a recently posted memo [PDF] (a memo that isn't a leak).  The piece is perhaps punchline-worthy in that it fails to provide any details to explicitly contradict the bulk of media commentary and characterizations.  However, lack of transparency isn't stopping the NSA from blaming (or crediting?) the press for the mire it's in, writing:

Recent press articles on NSA's collection operations conducted under Executive Order 12333 have misstated facts, mischaracterized NSA's activities, and drawn erroneous inferences about those operations.  NSA conducts all of its activities in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies -- and assertions to the contrary do a grave disservice to the nation, its allies and partners, and the men and women who make up the National Security Agency.

NSA Protesters
The NSA argues it's not evil, it's misunderstood. [Image Source: Flickr/swudc]

The agency acknowledges that it is prone to "incidentally acquire communications of U.S. persons", but says it does its best to delete such records "as soon as possible", if they aren't pertinent to a terrorist investigation.  The document, however, is predictably devoid of any facts and details of its efforts to mitigate its "accidental" spying on Americans.  Of course, if Sens. Wyden, Udall, and Heinrich say the NSA isn't being transparent even in confidential, closed-door Senate sessions, did you expect anything less?

Sources: The Huffington Post, The New York Times, NSA Statement [PDF], The Washington Post



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

*explicit* no
By HostileEffect on 12/1/13, Rating: 0
RE: *explicit* no
By troysavary on 12/2/2013 3:24:48 AM , Rating: 5
So, your main fear is that your mom will find your porn stash and you want to encrypt your computer when you can afford one? Usually I hate when people use this line, but somehow it fits here, "What are you, 14?"


RE: *explicit* no
By HostileEffect on 12/2/13, Rating: 0
RE: *explicit* no
By mike66 on 12/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: *explicit* no
By 91TTZ on 12/2/2013 11:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't even trust each other, theft seems to be very popular on a government and individual level, for a nation who think themselves rich, you can't see that you are morally bankrupt.


Many people are, but not all of us are. The problem is that states and the government is increasingly making laws which protect the morally bankrupt troublemakers, as if they're an endangered species that needs to be protected.

In some areas, if some scumbag is trying to mug you and you hurt them while defending yourself, you may be charged with a crime. After all, it wasn't the mugger's fault that they're muggers- it's society's fault and this criminal is just a victim.


RE: *explicit* no
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/2/2013 12:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you there.

Laws seem to be made to protect the offenders rather than the victim by assuming that the offenders are the victim and the victims are the offenders.

For instance if someone breaks into my house, cleans it out, and in the process of making a getaway trips down my stairs and breaks a leg, who do you think is the one charged with a crime --- ME! And the courts will back him all the way as he commences to sue me for a million dollars.

Heaven forbid if I have a gun and point it at the burglar while he is ransacking my home. They would lock me up and flush the key down the crapper.


RE: *explicit* no
By Mitch101 on 12/2/2013 12:30:06 PM , Rating: 3
From my understanding and Ive made a similar comment to a few police I know. They say your fine as long as the thief doesn't appear to be trying to escape the premises and if hes one leg out the window drag his corpse back inside.


RE: *explicit* no
By ebakke on 12/2/2013 2:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
IMO, so long as a burglar is on my property, I should be able to shoot. The direction he's facing is irrelevant. The risk of jail, injury, or death was well known before the individual trespassed, and then attempted to steal my property.


RE: *explicit* no
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/2/2013 9:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps that works in the state you guys live in. That is not the way it works here.

Here the criminal has more rights than the victim. I'm not kidding. My insurance company refused to ensure may partially finished house (grading was not yet done) because the back stairs was too far from from the back door. The reason the adjuster gave me was : "If someone robbed your house and attempted to use the back door, fell and broke their leg, they can sue us. Seal that door so there is no way to open it"

Welcome to Canada folks.


RE: *explicit* no
By ebakke on 12/2/2013 10:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, sorry if I was unclear. That's not what the law states in my particular state. That's just what I feel is just.


RE: *explicit* no
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2013 12:15:53 AM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately some States have adopted the position that you have a legal "duty" to flee if at all possible. Even from your own home! I don't know how these laws are legal or passed Constitutional muster, but there you have it.

As a gun owner and concealed license holder, I naturally wouldn't live in a State without a Castle doctrine and some type of "stand your ground" law.


RE: *explicit* no
By ClownPuncher on 12/2/2013 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 1
That's pretty racist.


RE: *explicit* no
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 4
prejudice you mean, the US population is not a race.


RE: *explicit* no
By ClownPuncher on 12/2/2013 12:42:02 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, but the term is tossed around all the time in exactly the same context.


RE: *explicit* no
By ShaolinSoccer on 12/2/2013 1:17:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
morally bankrupt


Have you ever been to the USA? It's actually pretty great here in many places that are full of people who actually have morals.


RE: *explicit* no
By WLee40 on 12/2/2013 1:50:53 PM , Rating: 4
I agree with you completely. It is all the morally bankrupt individuals that get all the media time. The media paints a very narrow picture, its all about ratings... Be mindful of what you read and see.


RE: *explicit* no
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/2/2013 9:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's also a pretty piss-poor with some of the more visible places full of people who have no morals (i.e. Washington D.C.).

Not gonna just point a finger across the border though. Canada has a handful of those too (Ottawa).


RE: *explicit* no
By HostileEffect on 12/2/2013 5:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
A double post due to lack of an edit button.

Theft is a big problem in a barracks. I've had my laundry stolen countless times, someone stole my belt from my room because the locks can be picked with a stiff card and they aren't sold on this base. My bicycle was destroyed while I was in CMCC (formal school for rifle/pistol coaching) because the drunks who broke into my room couldn't figure out how to cut the lock chaining it to my bed. Issued gear, uniforms, you name it people take it, that's why we have gear guards during training because people can't be trusted.

The last thing I need is for someone to pry the cornflake doors off my locker and steal my laptop with all my financial logins, MOL, E-tailers, you name it. So yeah I encrypt my stuff.

The line about my mother is a figure of speech.


RE: *explicit* no
By notreal on 12/2/2013 8:17:33 AM , Rating: 5
You are a Marine stationed on one of the five major Marine bases on Okinawa.

You are relocating to Hawaii. Which tells me that you are likely with an artillery unit - but either way - closer to a grunt Marine than someone working in an office. Most likely a 0311 with your rifleman comment.

You live in the barracks - not off base - which says you are a relatively low rank and without a family.

And you admit that there is elicit information you are accessing.

And by a simple search for "HostileEffect" we find you're a gamer among other things.

With the level of information your very comments reveal aboutyourself, you don't need encryption. You need to learn a little OPSEC. And spread this message around with your buddies in the barracks. Like the Navy says, "Loose lips sink ships." You're doing too good of a job on this.


RE: *explicit* no
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/2/2013 2:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And by a simple search for "HostileEffect" we find you're a gamer among other things.
Right, because other people can't use this name as well.....


RE: *explicit* no
By Camikazi on 12/2/2013 2:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that people tend to use the same username on most sites yes? While yes it might not be them there is a very good chance that it is.


RE: *explicit* no
By HostileEffect on 12/2/2013 6:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Threw my name into Google, popped up with places I know I used to go to. I was surprised when twitter popped since I never touched it. Most of the other ones are accurate.


RE: *explicit* no
By HostileEffect on 12/2/2013 4:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Congrats you used Google.


RE: *explicit* no
By HostileEffect on 12/2/2013 5:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
I should also note that the majority of your information is either out of date or wrong, but you knew that didn't you? Your right I'm in a grunt unit, its in my post history and hardly a secret. checking unit websites can give you the exact one if you are that desperate to know. Not All married people get to live in a house if their wife isn't on island.

Wouldn't surprise me if your one of the chaps monitoring face book pages for snide comments about the battalion commander, NCIS or another blue falcon type.

We hate our lives too much to care about COMSEC or opsec, self-endangering acts are common for us given we are expendable and cheap labor.

- big green weenie.


RE: *explicit* no
By ritualm on 12/2/2013 7:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
Problem with your situation is, your ilk rightfully earned the contempt of the locals due to numerous serious crimes involving US military personnel. You cannot be trusted to treat the locals with respect. When your lot commits crimes off-base, justice is very seldom served against the perpetrators.

It's bad enough that US bases are a major source of noise pollution in Okinawa. It's even worse that they are also a major source of violent crime on the island.

The locals aren't the reason you keep losing things.


RE: *explicit* no
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 12:31:43 PM , Rating: 3
All of you logins should be stored in an encrypted password manager like keypass. This is computer security 101.


RE: *explicit* no
By HostileEffect on 12/2/2013 6:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not a password manager but they are encrypted in their own container. Yes, it is basic security... I actually did it because I kept forgetting my passwords I have so many of them but I hate insecure written records.


RE: *explicit* no
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 12:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
fear is that your mom will find your porn stash


Hey, thats embarrassing at any age. But who keeps a porn stash theses days with sites like youporn?


RE: *explicit* no
By Camikazi on 12/2/2013 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 3
Sometimes the internet is not available, so it is smart to keep a small stash for those times. ALWAYS BE PREPARED!!!


RE: *explicit* no
By rechiel7890 on 12/4/2013 3:23:39 PM , Rating: 1
as Andrea responded I didn't know that any one able to profit $4068 in 1 month on the computer. go right here............ bay91


RE: *explicit* no
By rechiel7890 on 12/4/2013 3:55:28 PM , Rating: 1
Austin. I can see what your saying... Jacqueline`s artlclee is really cool... on saturday I got themselves a Ford after having made $8151 this-last/4 weeks and-also, $10 thousand this past month. it's certainly the most-comfortable job Ive ever done. I actually started four months/ago and right away was bringing in more than $85 per-hour. Visit This Link...bay91


RE: *explicit* no
By kirkczuhai on 12/2/2013 8:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
spam? you ARE JUST


So What...
By DFranch on 12/2/2013 8:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
So the government is looking into radical Muslims to find ways to discredit them. Does this come as a surprise to anybody? Lets see some of the comments of these "innocent victims":

1) Non-Muslims are a threat to Islam (remind me to send him a Christmas card)
2) offensive jihad is justified (see, the US should just declare a jihad against radical Muslims and it is justified)
3) the U.S perpetrated the 9/11 attack (and Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll)
4) the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself (she asked for it)

Gee, I wonder why they are trying to discredit them! Apparently, 2 of them watch a lot of porn, and the other 2 are getting rich from their BS.

And the goal of all this to discredit people who promote jihad against the US. <sarcasm> Well what an evil self serving government we have. </sarcasm>




RE: So What...
By 91TTZ on 12/2/2013 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
So the government is looking into radical Muslims to find ways to discredit them. Does this come as a surprise to anybody?


"Radical Muslims" are used as an excuse because nobody cares to defend them.

But just like after 9/11, laws which were meant to hunt down "the terrorists" were used to hunt down ordinary non-terrorist Americans.

Suddenly people who own firearms for sporting are deemed "suspicious" and ordinary people who oppose the abuses of government power are labeled "persons of interest".

Learn from the past- this is nothing more than a power grab that WILL be used against ordinary Americans that aren't Muslims and aren't terrorists.


RE: So What...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/2/2013 12:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
The dumbest part of all this is that there are millions of Muslims living in the U.S. today as citizens. Who defines which of those are "Radical" Muslims?

What about all the "Radical" Christians? Lord knows that there are plenty of those as well. Who is targeting them? And don't forget the "Radical" Jews as well. Those guys are particularly dangerous!


RE: So What...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/2/2013 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Dbl post -- sowwy...

The biggest laugh of all is that even though the NSA kicked this kind of profiling shortly after 9/11, it still took them 10 years to hunt down OBL.


RE: So What...
By Mitch101 on 12/2/2013 12:44:52 PM , Rating: 2

In a way yes bad but 10 years of constantly looking over your shoulder and wondering if today is the day. Every loud noise has to have you on edge. Every person you talk to and every time you see someone for the first time you have to wonder. Not being able to go anywhere without excessive coverage and the inability to walk freely.


RE: So What...
By Dr of crap on 12/2/2013 12:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
AND why don't the calm "normal" Muslims call out these radical ones.

It would seem to me that you would want to distance yourself from these crazies, yet never have I heard any of your brothers denounce these "radicals". Or state how these crazies do not define how the Muslims really act.

WHY NOT?

So we crazy Americans only see the crazy Muslims and then spread it across the entire religion. YOU have to speak out and make sure every one knows that there really are peaceful Muslims. A vast majority don't see any of that.
But boy make a Muslim have to carry liquor in his cab and it BIG news. SEE the problem here?


RE: So What...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/2/2013 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 1
That's because there are two kinds: those who support terrorism and those who secretly condone it.


RE: So What...
By ClownPuncher on 12/2/2013 1:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
No. You're thinking of the Irish.


RE: So What...
By Dr of crap on 12/2/2013 1:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
So your saying ALL Muslims will either look the other way or join in for a Jihad???

Great! They have some strange ways of viewing the world.


RE: So What...
By Ammohunt on 12/2/2013 1:59:44 PM , Rating: 1
Thats a known fact! Islam and the culture that surrounds it is completely incompatible to liberalized(as compared to islamic nations) western civilization.


RE: So What...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/2/2013 3:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah years ago you were called a racist or bigot for pointing that out.

Now you have to be willfully ignorant to not get it.


RE: So What...
By MikeDiction on 12/3/2013 1:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
Unbelievable. You are painting a group composing of over a billion people as either actively supporting or secretly condoning acts of violence.

I'll make a generalization: This piece of shit doesn't represent even a fraction of the American people. The vast majority of Americans realize that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and tolerant just like any other people.


RE: So What...
By Dr of crap on 12/3/2013 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and the if you really believe that I have some swamp land for sale you can pick up real cheap!

Our stupid neighbors can't even figure out that smoking is bad and to stop eating and getting fat, and you think they KNOW that Muslims are peaceful and tolerant?? After 9/11 and all that has happened and you believe that statement??

THAT is why my first post!
WHY don't any of the "peaceful, tolerant" Muslims speak out about the others that say they are fighting FOR their religion?????


RE: So What...
By Etsp on 12/3/2013 1:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
They do speak out, quite often actually.


RE: So What...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2013 4:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They do speak out, quite often actually.


It's been way too little way too late. It's halfassed. It doesn't even feel genuine, more like a token gesture.

And then you have stuff like this happening. Are we SURE all those American Muslim's aren't all that radical?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/em...

This man dedicated his entire life to the teachings of Islam. But was outcast because he wasn't extreme enough.


RE: So What...
By Ammohunt on 12/3/2013 1:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Because honor killings, indentured servants(slaves) and women in burqas according to sharia doesn't exist or happen ever in America....where does any part of the above fit within the founding documents? 1st Amendment to the bill of rights as the sake of all others?


RE: So What...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2013 4:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
America....where does any part of the above fit within the founding documents? 1st Amendment to the bill of rights as the sake of all others?


Well the Founders were big on freedom of religion. It's one of the central tenants of America.

HOWEVER, where do you draw the line when that religion suppresses other Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and freedoms?


RE: So What...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/4/2013 11:08:43 AM , Rating: 1
Oh really? And Jews don't circumcise their male children? Sounds like child mutilation to me.

Slaves? You know of someone, anyone at all, holding slaves in the U.S.? If you do I am sure the FBI would be very interested in discussing it in detail with you. I would give them a call right now if you are this concerned about it.

Likewise if you know of honor killings taking place in the U.S. I am sure the police department where these are happening would like a word with you. AFAIK honor killings is still considered first degree murder in just about every country that does not specifically permit them.

Don't blame slavery or indentured servitude on Muslims. There is more than enough of that shit going on all over the world - even by those sick f**ks that fashion themselves as devout christians. If you don't think so look at the child labor going on in China or the white slavery going on the in the underground sex trade. There is a lot of it taking place right under your nose.

Buquas? WTF do you care about the way a person dresses? what does it have to do with terrorism? Just because a person's beliefs require them to dress in accordance with those beliefs has no bearing whatsoever on them being or wanting to be terrorists any more than an nun's habit makes them want to be a terrorist.

You know that the jewish religion requires their boys to be circumcised, right? I would call that sexual mutilation of children right there.


RE: So What...
By Ammohunt on 12/4/2013 1:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh really? And Jews don't circumcise their male children? Sounds like child mutilation to me.


I am not Jewish but i am circumcised it was common practice in the 70ies for new born males either way this is an obvious Red Herring and has nothing at all to do with the topic of my original post.

quote:
Don't blame slavery or indentured servitude on Muslims.


Obviously you have never been to an Arab country or read the Koran. I have....

quote:
Likewise if you know of honor killings taking place in the U.S.


Don't read/watch the news much do you...

quote:
Buquas? WTF do you care about the way a person dresses?


We have this thing called Womens Suffrage in this country you might want to look it up. Burqas are used specifically as a tool of oppression by the matriarchal culture derived from Islam


RE: So What...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/4/2013 2:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well you are pointing at sharia law as being oppressive and degrading to women. Many point at that religous law and slam its requirement of female circumcision. I am pointing out that similar treatment of males exist in Judaism yet nobody thinks twice that is the same kind of mutilation of children. Nor was the circumcision practice in North America looked upon as mutilation, yet it is every bit the same.

Exactly how much of the Qur'an have you read? That you are spelling it as 'Koran' tells me that you have in fact not read it or whatever it said went right over your head.

Some arabic countries do not have the same social valuers as the good ol' USA. Were you expecting them to? Guess what, some countries have legal prostitution and drug use too. Surprise! The world is NOT based on the American social culture. What does this have to do with the U.S. government profiling Muslim citizens?

And please tell us all -- those honor killings happening in the U.S... Are the persons doing the killing getting away with it? If they are, what do you really think is broken here - the fact that the killings are taking place or that the murderers are not being punished for it?

Burqas - And nuns wear habits. So what? Have you seen what religious afghani men wear? Again, what has this to do with terrorism? To be honest, I am 60 years old and have yet to see any woman wearing anything looking like this in North America:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__V2M5Hky_wI/S9q9tuLJafI/...

Again if you think this is oppressive, perhaps you should be asking the woman wearing that outfit if they are oppressed.


RE: So What...
By Ammohunt on 12/6/2013 12:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The world is NOT based on the American social culture.


Liberty and Freedom are not uniquely American concepts but the core foundation of western civilization immortalized in the founding documents of the United States. These concepts such as Liberty,Freedom and god given human rights are in direct conflict with the current culture of Islam and Sharia law. This is not an opinion this is a fact.


RE: So What...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: So What...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/2/2013 9:36:48 PM , Rating: 3
Oooo you in deep doo-doo then jar jar.

There are millions of Muslims living as U.S. citizens right now. You better pray to Allah that Ahmad down at the smoke shop doesn't drop a grenade in your bag along with your Marlboros for giving him the stink-eye.


RE: So What...
By 1prophet on 12/3/2013 8:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
They do, and then they get kicked out of the mosque and can't return unless they repent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbkrKH7SCio#t=74


RE: So What...
By Ammohunt on 12/2/13, Rating: 0
RE: So What...
By ClownPuncher on 12/2/2013 2:09:08 PM , Rating: 3
No.


RE: So What...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/2/2013 9:30:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Last time i checked Radical Christians are not bombing shopping malls and cutting off non-Christians heads there is nor moral equivalence here stop it.

orly? lookie here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examp...
http://www.policymic.com/articles/37601/holy-war-i...

Do you see the Catholics, Protestants or Jerry Falwell rising up and stamping these out?

Yeah, right.


RE: So What...
By Ammohunt on 12/3/2013 1:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Salon? yeah.... sight one modern example of an active Christian terrorist group that has specifically acted to kill non-believers in the same fashion Al-qaeda does. We all know what Christianity has done in the past and frankly no ones cares except humanist dolts that try and use past religious crimes as a straw man to argue against all religions; a simpletons argument.


RE: So What...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/4/2013 11:25:47 AM , Rating: 2
Do you honestly believe that Bin Laden's motives for 9/11 or any other terrorist attack by the Al-Qaeda was based solely on religion? Are you really that naive?

Motives:
1. Strike back at the United States for sanctions apposed against Iraq.

2. Remove American presence in Saudi Arabia.

3. Support of Israel. Israel has been the enemy of Islam for a couple thousand years. You can bet your boots that if the U.S. had been supporting Iran that the Radical Israelis would be every bit as anti-American as the Radical Muslims are today.

Bin Laden used religion as a tool to generate hate against Americans. He was a charismatic criminal managed to sell the idea that his poor and ignorant followers will be reside i heaven with their god if they die in HIS service. Don't underestimate the power of religions suggestion by someone skilled in conning people. Tune in on any televangelist you will find they are bilking millions out of ignorant people every day by telling them that giving them money will assure them a place in heaven.


Smith v Maryland
By flatrock on 12/2/2013 11:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
Until the Supreme Court overturn Smith v Maryland or Congress get's off it's ass and legislates better protections for metadata in third party hands, not much is going to change.

You can make a big deal out of the rhetoric a Judge used to criticize the poor job management at the NSA did in passing on the court's requirements and making sure they were implemented according to the court's wishes. However, even the irate judge didn't see evidence of a bad faith attempt by the NSA to do an end run around his order. The mistakes should have been caught. The NSA needs to have better procedures and safeguards, and according to the report they at least said they would improve them.

The thousands of violations generally boil down to typos in filters and other mistakes. I believe there were reportedly a handful of willful violations in the last decade, which makes the large number of people handling the data an exceptionally law abiding group.

These programs keep getting re-approved because according to the law and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution they are both legal and constitutional.

Until that changes other than some mistakes and sloppy procedures the NSA is doing their job. Some loud mouthed members of congress and from the administration are making the NSA the scapegoat for the public's wrath, but they are the ones setting the policy and the laws under which the NSA is operating, and these programs keep passing Judicial muster because of those policies and laws.

When the NSA gathers the metadata of calls made by millions of people in the US, they aren't legally searching though our constitutionally protected data. They are searching the phone company's business records which have extremely little legal protection from seizure by the government.

In my mind that's the biggest issue that needs public pressure to make sure it gets addressed.




RE: Smith v Maryland
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/2/2013 12:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what you said, but as for.
quote:
You can make a big deal out of the rhetoric a Judge used to criticize the poor job management at the NSA did in passing on the court's requirements and making sure they were implemented according to the court's wishes. However, even the irate judge didn't see evidence of a bad faith attempt by the NSA to do an end run around his order. The mistakes should have been caught. The NSA needs to have better procedures and safeguards, and according to the report they at least said they would improve them.

The thousands of violations generally boil down to typos in filters and other mistakes. I believe there were reportedly a handful of willful violations in the last decade, which makes the large number of people handling the data an exceptionally law abiding group.
You're making a potentially erroneous statement.

It's true that most of the violations of the law that the agency and its contractors were WILLING to admit to were shown to be "operator error".

Let me ask you... if you did something (hypothetically, speaking) really bad, and someone with no real way of checking your behavior first hand asked you if you did anything bad which would sound more suspicious -- if you claimed you had done NOTHING improper, or if you admitted to making a mistake here or there?

Think about that.

Congress has no way of verifying the DNI's audits independently. Heck, even the DNI must trust the agencies are handing it clean and proper records of violations. And the agencies have to trust the contractors they hired.

So there's multiple levels at which major violations can quietly be sanitized.

If the NSA contracts the data mining system out to Booz Allen Hamilton to codes the system, codes the logging, codes the monitoring, whose to stop BAH if institutional investor/major shareholder A asks for corporate data on a competitor to one of the companies they own.

How is this going to be logged if they wrote the logging code?

It's a corporate espionage wet dream. If I was Chase Bank, Bank of America, etc. I'd absolutely be buying up as much stock in Oracle, BAH, etc., so I could ask for some "special favors" and get insider information.

Even in terms of political suppression, given how much Congress says the NSA isn't telling it detail-wise, I think it's impossible to verify whether audits were accurate, thorough, and complete.

Their may be acts as bad as Watergate or worse that may never see the light of day, in this era of digital spooks and shadow spending.


One of the worst jobs in the world.
By ShaolinSoccer on 12/2/2013 1:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
I would hate to have the job of looking at porn. We all know the majority of porn is disgusting. I can't even imagine how it's even possible for someone to do it every day.




By ritualm on 12/2/2013 9:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
Little known fact: graphically encrypted porn looks like static noise on a TV.


Purely a coincidence!
By WoWCow on 12/2/2013 12:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is a coincidence... right? Or is the NSA really looking for a secret weapon amongst the populace? ;)

http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2013-11-28/

http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2013-11-29/




Wow.
By Amedean on 12/1/13, Rating: -1
RE: Wow.
By ritualm on 12/2/2013 1:10:18 AM , Rating: 5
It's going to be too little, too late when you start complaining that your own privacy was compromised. Oh it's not happening right now? Give or take a few years, son...


RE: Wow.
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/2/2013 12:11:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This article just like the title is trash. Jason must have gotten an online degree on journalism because his articles usually have more pictures than content like children's books. This isn't news...
It's sad to see such willful ignorance, at a time when our nation is in such great danger.

Then again you will always be blind until the day you choose to see.

===============================

Why is this newsworthy?

A) This is absolutely within the purview of DT. We're a tech news site. This is about government technology policy and internet privacy. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you...

B) This is an important topic. Your government is spending YOUR money to spy on YOU. That's what their actions say, regardless of how much they claim to be "trying not to spy on you". If someone breaks out your car window and steals your wallet or purse, it doesn't matter whether they say they're "trying not to steal". They stole. The Obama administration may say they're "trying" to eliminate data they collect from Americans. But "trying" isn't good enough. They're breaking the law, and they're doing it in a clear attempt to pay off special interest backers.

===============================

What are my personal views?

Maybe you think I'm trying to plug the Republicans or trash on Obama. I'm not. Obama is just a tool who received the highest amount of special interest dollars. And like Bush before him, he got elected on money not merits.

I'm no Republican. In 2007 I campaigned for Obama, when he first ran. I was naive. I believed all the "hope" nonsense. Then I saw the money he took. And I saw what he did. And I realized the man I had backed had done all the worst stuff I had despised about President Bush.

The funny part is I have a good friend who is a former Republican -- voted red for years. He had a similar experience with Bush. Now he votes libertarian. Open minded people are starting to take note that the "red" and "blue" are just two colors, but the flavor of the ice cream is the same.

The more you look into stuff, the more you realize that both parties are colluding to destroy capitalism (the free market), funnel money to plutocratic special interests, and drive the middle class into poverty. And to get there, they're working to slowly erode civil liberties and privacy. They're using false flags like "terrorism" to stir up fear and nationalism, so they can slowly tighten the noose.

There's some members of Congress that are bucking this trend, like Rand Paul, Gary Udall, Ron Wyden, et al.

But the mass media does the best make them look like crazy. Look at how they mocked Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, two men who might have somewhat different political idealogies, but who were among the few to protest the corrupt "consensus" that's plaguing Washington.

As I came to recognize the reality of our federal government, I began to look more carefully into candidates who are seeking my vote more deeply. And after looking at voting records and the repugnant stench of the money trail around most of the candidates I have to choose from on the (R) and (D) sides, I can not in good conscious bring myself to vote for them.

I voted for a handful of Republicans or Democrats in the last election... most of them local. But generally I find myself voting libertarian now. Because when my elected official supports taking my money, spending on useless efforts to spy on me, and then has the nerve to lie to our faces and say they're protect us, I'd much rather vote for a third party and lose, than support such a candidate.

=========================================

But isn't this fighting terrorism?

Bush and Obama promised to use this data to track "terrorists", but it's been extensive document that they've instead used it to track group at odds with their special interest backers, e.g. Occupy Wall Street activists, Quakers, and possibly even The Pope.

I shudder at the thought that some Americans are cool with the fact that big special interest contractors paid off politicians and capitalized on post-9/11 fears to score billions in virtually no-compete contracts to spy on the population 24/7.

Such people are also quick to dismiss the thousands of times yearly that federal investigators "accidentally" break the law.

If you or I "accidentally" broke the law, we'd be sitting in a cell somewhere. The way things are going, maybe that will be the end result even if we don't. After all, if privacy and freedom of speech are on their deathbed, how far off can freedom of the press be?

=========================================

Why should I care?

If you can't "get" the privacy/political suppression dangers of these kinds of dragnet monitoring schemes, at least wrap your mind around that you're paying a helluva a lot of money for it, and based on the pathetically weak defenses and backtracking from the NSA in Congressional testimony, they basically blew all that money of yours for virtually no results in terms of terrorism.

They spent literally hundreds of billions on these monitoring schemes over the last decade, but the best the NSA could claim in testimony is that these programs "might" have helped in one or two terrorism cases, and that they're "trying" not to collect Americans' data (which is current illegal it appears).

Meanwhile dozens of terrorist plots have been foiled by underpaid police officers using traditional tactics, respecting warrants and due process. In terms of funding, these agencies have received tens, if not hundreds of billions dollars less than the digital spying campaigns.

If I was a law enforcement officer I'd be as f--king mad as the rest of us. Imagine if that money had been spent to pay cops better or give merit pay for HONORABLE cops that have low levels if internal affairs complaints. Imagine how many more would-be terrorists would have been busted.

But no, instead the government is blowing our money on a scheme that gives your money hand over hand to special interests, catches virtually no terrorists, and has potentially devastating consequences if these blank check powers are further abused by future administrations.

=========================================

What American in their right mind is cool with that?

I understand public sentiments about radical Islam and fear of terrorism.

But let's not abandon our common sense at the first hint of danger.

Remember:
You'll always be blind until the day you choose to see.


RE: Wow.
By Jeffk464 on 12/2/2013 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's sad to see such willful ignorance, at a time when our nation is in such great danger


Our nations biggest danger is the economic suicide that we seem to be on with our dealings with China, terrorism is a small whimper of a threat compared to that.


RE: Wow.
By ebakke on 12/2/2013 1:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Jason's point wasn't that terrorism is a threat. Our own government is the threat.


RE: Wow.
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/3/2013 9:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

The following is cliche, but it is so very true regardless:

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If you doubt this, pull your head out of the sane and take off the rose-colored glasses. Have a good close look at the world around you and what is going on in it.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki