Prism

[FoolKiller]

The fact is that the nature of the threats posed to US people and interests are changing constantly and at a frightening pace, and it is the duty of the government to protect its people - it may well be that the average politician in Congress believes that the threats posed to the nation are so great that trampling long-held Constitutionally-protected rights is the lesser of two evils.

If that is the case then they would be far better served releasing details of who they captured after they catch them. Even just an annual report would do. If this kind of monitoring is what caught the guys then saying so, after the guy is caught, doesn't endanger anyone.

They know the reaction people will have to finding out how in-depth they go. If what they are doing is about the greater good of the public, then let the public decide, let the public set the limits, and let the policy be a matter of public debate. Instead, they hide it, deny it, and lie about it. They give the public zero reason to trust them.

It would be easier to believe this was above the board if they didn't handle it the way corrupt police handle videotaping. Police try to argue videotaping them doing their job is obstruction, but the only thing it appears to obstruct is police abuse. Here, they claim that public knowledge prevents it from working. They can't explain how, other than we would not allow it. If the public knowing it exists is too dangerous, then it cannot just be what they claim it is.

I will be willing to believe them when they are willing to be honest. After Rand Paul's first security briefing he said that we would be shocked to find out what he learned, and how intrusive the government is, but he is bound by law to not divulge the information. Everyone wrote him off as the kooky libertarian. Now, his story then corroborates what Snowden has said. Yet, we still have government officials trying to tell us that isn't what it is.

The more telling thing to me is that as a senator, with the same knowledge many are arguing with today, Obama argued against security at the cost of civil liberties. What is different between what Senator Obama knew in 2006 and what Senators McCain, Graham, and Feinstein know today? According to Snowden, its not different and that is why he gave Obama a term to fix it.

 

[photonrider]

Indeed. PRISM being just one of those threats.

Some drivelling sycophant or other - possibly a politician, but maybe a senior federal agent - remarked that PRISM is good because it stopped lots of terrorism. The fact that PRISM is terrorism - an attack on the freedoms of civilians - seems to have escaped him...

Well said. We have met the enemy; it is us.

Definitely shades of Enemy of the State here. Unauthorized surveillance isn't a new idea - and as technology evolves to provide more scope to such activities citizens will have to constantly be on the watch for the erosion of their personal privacy.

When the accusations of wrongful thoughts begin is when we will have lost our minds completely.

 

[FoolKiller]

Check it out. Joe Biden speaks out against NSA surveillance.


Oh, that's Senator Joe Biden.



And "22 Nauseating Quotes From Hypocritical Establishment Politicians About The NSA Spying Scandal"

 

[Zenith]

Well at least they stopped dodging questions and instead moved on to flat out lying to us.

 

[photonrider]

I'm sure they know that we know.

 

[Zenith]

I admire your optimism.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Facebook speaks up about what was asked of them and how they responded:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-15/facebook/4756342

 

[Grayfox]

Facebook is an American company.

The NSA can just raid them if they suspect a user is a terrorist or at a warrant for all information about the user.

 

[Rage Racer]

In my country, we don't even doubt our electronic (and not only) activities being watched. FSB never sleeps. In Soviet Russia, TV watches you. And you just face it.

 

[Grayfox]

I read that that the NSA says the europeans should not worry about there internet being monitored, because they review data so they can deffer from a words like that place was the bomb and a terrorist saying bomb.

 

[FoolKiller]

I read that that the NSA says the europeans should not worry about there internet being monitored, because they review data so they can deffer from a words like that place was the bomb and a terrorist saying bomb.

Other way around. Americans shouldn't be getting watched because there are Constitutional constraints on it. The NSA says they use keywords to determine foreignness, or non-Americans.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...mation-google-facebook-skype-apple-more.shtml

They claim that they're not collecting all data, but it's not clear that makes a real difference:

But there is one glaring issue they act like isn't a big deal.

Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness.”

So, there is only a 49% margin for error.

 

[Grayfox]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/06/15/19/39/prism-program-has-controls-in-place-us

The PRISM program does not collect private internet data haphazardly and without supervision, US Attorney General Eric Holder says, as he tries to assuage European fears about the controversial surveillance undertaking.

Judging by highlighted part they do review data without a warrant, since they are supervising it.

 

[FoolKiller]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/06/15/19/39/prism-program-has-controls-in-place-us

The PRISM program does not collect private internet data haphazardly and without supervision, US Attorney General Eric Holder says, as he tries to assuage European fears about the controversial surveillance undertaking.

Judging by highlighted part they do review data without a warrant, since they are supervising it.

There is a comedic bit to that, as at the same time the Adminstration is trying to claim the IRS scandal is just rogue agents acting out of line and Snowden is an attention grabbing traitor. They fail to realize that their excuses for the other scandals and leaks show that they are unable to guarantee the security of their data. Even if they are telling the truth, it looks bad.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I suspect a totalitarian state in 10 years.

Wait modern industrialized nations aren't already there to an extent. We may not be their on a level like Syria, but to a degree it could be said we are based on a Gov't that lie and hides from the populous keeps us at an arms length because they are tracking said population. What is even more laughable is that to save face, they now want to claim Snowden is a defector, I guess the Cold War is still going I guess.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I think that speaker Boener and Cheney have no credibility for calling Snowden a traitor, neither does that slimeball Rove too. For the platforms that he was elected for, the speaker was awfully quick to stand up for Obama's policies on political enemies. All three have been ingrained in Washington politics for so long that they have become senile.

I also suspect that it was this program that forced the Chief Justice to uphold Obamacare. Listen to the Oral arguments again. He called it a tax during questioning. You knew how it was going down, and now you know the reason why.

 

[Vegard]

This is probably something you all have seen already but I felt this thread would be incomplete without it:

 

[shmogt]

Ok this is how Apple responded to this.

"From December 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013, Apple received between 4,000 and 5,000 requests from U.S. law enforcement for customer data. Between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices were specified in those requests, which came from federal, state and local authorities and included both criminal investigations and national security matters. The most common form of request comes from police investigating robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, trying to locate a patient with Alzheimer’s disease, or hoping to prevent a suicide." - Apple

Are you serious right now? 9-10,000 accounts or devices were looked into for criminal investigation. The police said they need all these for "investigating robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, trying to locate a patient with Alzheimer’s disease, or hoping to prevent a suicide". There is no way that many accounts can be linked any of that. That is such a huge number of requests for people just with a iPhone and Apple ID.

 

[Keef]

There are probably tens of millions of people with iPhones in this country. That's actually a really small number. Heck, I've seen phone inquiries done on the show The First 48, a show which usually deals with homicide. Local police requests will gather things like call history, location and geotagging information, social media posts and links, etc.

 

[FoolKiller]

There are probably tens of millions of people with iPhones in this country. That's actually a really small number. Heck, I've seen phone inquiries done on the show The First 48, a show which usually deals with homicide.

9,000-10,000 involved in crimes and missing persons. Of one device only? In just five months?

I agree, it seems excessive.

 

[shmogt]

There are probably tens of millions of people with iPhones in this country. That's actually a really small number. Heck, I've seen phone inquiries done on the show The First 48, a show which usually deals with homicide. Local police requests will gather things like call history, location and geotagging information, social media posts and links, etc.

I seen the show as well and that is required from the carrier. When have you seen the cops on that show go to the cell phone maker to get even more info? What could you possibly need from a apple ID to help solve a murder etc? There is literally only two reasons to need someone's apple ID and that's for Apple theft or snooping. For theft most people who report it stolen would obviously give the cops their ID if it was required and they would not have to make the request to apple. It's just way too huge of a number. I can't wait to see what google number is.

 

[Mark T]

9,000-10,000 involved in crimes and missing persons. Of one device only? In just five months?

I agree, it seems excessive.

I think you have to take in to account the fact that the police have become lazy. Rather than using conventional methods of trying to find someone (CCTV, door knocking for witnesses etc) they now probably just refer everything to the mobile operator in the hope that they have their phone on. I expect that in the future they won't even have to get a court order to track your phone, it'll be like the police phoning an insurance operator to check whether somebody is insured. Straight through to an operator who checks whether the phone is on and where it's located.

 

[FoolKiller]

I expect that in the future they won't even have to get a court order to track your phone, it'll be like the police phoning an insurance operator to check whether somebody is insured. Straight through to an operator who checks whether the phone is on and where it's located.

Which creates a lot of room for abuse, this should never be allowed to happen.


But that is too late, according to one congressman who divulged the contents of secret NSA briefings.

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

 

[shmogt]

Listening to your calls without legal papers is nothing new. Every criminal knows that the phone is death. What I have been wondering for a while now is what happens to voip calls? If i used Google voice or viber etc that wouldn't go through my normal phone number so how could they track me? Same with text messages on a app like whatsapp. They would have to hack into either my phone or the company that services you these features to record the data.

 

[Famine]

Listening to your calls without legal papers is nothing new.

But it is something illegal:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[shmogt]

But it is something illegal:

Oh yes I totally agree it is and should be a total outrage that they are now reporting it may be totally fine. However legal for us and legal for them is totally different. When you go to court to fight your charges you will have no idea that they have been listening to your calls etc and have used that info to strengthen their case against you. Legal now or not you were always screwed.

 

[Famine]

However legal for us and legal for them is totally different.

Yes. The Bill of Rights is a limitation of government and the people can't break those laws by behaving unconstitutionally - only the government and its agencies can.

It's illegal for them to be blanket monitoring phone calls without reasonable cause AND a warrant (which would never be issued as the warrant requires specifics).

 

[FoolKiller]

What I have been wondering for a while now is what happens to voip calls? If i used Google voice or viber etc that wouldn't go through my normal phone number so how could they track me? Same with text messages on a app like whatsapp. They would have to hack into either my phone or the company that services you these features to record the data.

Why do you think they are gathering Internet data too? Your phone has its own code identifying it as yours on your ISPs data network. All data is just a bunch of 1s and 0s. And they aren't hacking. They are ordering Google, Verizon, Apple, Facebook, etc to give them the data.

Basically, almost anything you can do over the Internet can be monitored, traced to your machine, and your machine located within a few meters or less. The Internet is not a single cable sending information between you and the other computer. It is a packet of data that is addressed to a certain computer and basically circles the network, asking if this is the route it should go until it finds the server it needs, then does it within that network to find the local server, then to the individual PCs. It is easy to intercept. Hackers do it all the time.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Yes. The Bill of Rights is a limitation of government and the people can't break those laws by behaving unconstitutionally - only the government and its agencies can.

It's illegal for them to be blanket monitoring phone calls without reasonable cause AND a warrant (which would never be issued as the warrant requires specifics).

Besides it is as it was said one time, the NSA were, and still is, breaking the Patriot Act for seven years because they were using a fishing net to track terror. That General Alexander is nuts for saying that PRISM would have stopped 9/11 because of the program. I'm sorry, but most of the attempted terror attacks that occurred in the US were stopped by alert citizens who actually cared for their country, not by PC.

 

[shmogt]

Yes. The Bill of Rights is a limitation of government and the people can't break those laws by behaving unconstitutionally - only the government and its agencies can.

It's illegal for them to be blanket monitoring phone calls without reasonable cause AND a warrant (which would never be issued as the warrant requires specifics).

All the laws and rules apply to everyone however they government takes that as "everyone". Look at the TSA at the airport. Total violation of your privacy and human rights. Their answer is if you don't like it don't fly. Monitoring phone calls or Internet use. They can spy all they want and you won't be able to tell. If they can get away with it they will sure as hell try. The only way to take them to court over this is if you have proof which is impossible to get. I don't know why people still think the government is all little angels sticky trying to help the people. They have all the power in the world and that will go to anyone's head.

 

[FoolKiller]

Funny or Die has a solution.

(Language warning)