Live data from Hacker News

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

news.cnet.com

191–200 of 407 posts

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if you were designing a system to store massive amounts of intercepted email data for archival and occasional retrieval. The design would be quite different from gmail and it would require a lot less infrastructure. I think your analysis is perhaps being biased a bit by the idea that dealing with all the email data would be massively expensive. Also, consider that phone companies already have existing governm…

You think the average American would be less concerned about direct access to Google Mail than they would about the NSA having the ability to listen to everyone's phone calls ?

I think the opposite, which is why I think the story is evolving to minimize the gmail access being done.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#192
So now we have a single node from which all electronic forms of human communication can be read, listened to and analyzed. The decisions of any and all businessmen in the running of their financial empires, the conversations of all persons as they speak to their stockbroker, their mistress or their business colleague. And I am told to believe that this situation is OK, is normal, and that nothing untoward will be done with all of this information.

Yet I know that if I had access to this information I could make billions of dollars (e.g., by shorting stocks or by buying businesses or commodities), alter the lives of people who I do not like (e.g., get them fired for their hidden or unhidden human weaknesses), destroy entire organizations by revealing the contents of their communications to a selective person or persons. The list of possibilities is almost infinite and I cannot, do not, will not believe that such actions not only are possible, but have already happened and indeed are happening at this very moment.

The Roman Terence said: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", that is "I am a human being, I consider nothing that is human alien to me."

PRISM must be dismantled, it's backup volumes destroyed, it's creators punished. But we will never likely be able to put it back into Pandora's box: there will always be someone who saves a hard drive or a backup tape cartridge and who will sell it to the highest bidder. We will have to declare new laws rendering these acts illegal. We will have to hunt illegal data gatherers down and punish them the old-fashioned way using humans, knives, blood, sweat and tears.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#193
So now we have a single node from which all electronic forms of human communication can be read, listened to and analyzed. The decisions of any and all businessmen in the running of their financial empires, the conversations of all persons as they speak to their stockbroker, their mistress or their business colleague. And I am told to believe that this situation is OK, is normal, and that nothing untoward will be done with all of this information.

Yet I know that if I had access to this information I could make billions of dollars (e.g., by shorting stocks or by buying businesses or commodities), alter the lives of people who I do not like (e.g., get them fired for their hidden or unhidden human weaknesses), destroy entire organizations by revealing the contents of their communications to a selective person or persons. The list of possibilities is almost infinite and I cannot, do not, will not believe that such actions not only are possible, but have already happened and indeed are happening at this very moment. As the Roman Terence said: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", that is "I am a human being, I consider nothing that is human alien to me."

PRISM must be dismantled, it's backup volumes destroyed, it's creators punished. But we will never likely be able to put it back into Pandora's box: there will always be someone who saves a hard drive or a backup tape cartridge and who will sell it to the highest bidder. We will have to declare new laws rendering these acts illegal. We will have to hunt illegal data gatherers down and punish them the old-fashioned way using humans, knives, blood, sweat and tears.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#194
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"and the Guardian walked the claim back" No they didn't. "The Guardian has not revised any of our articles and, to my knowledge, has no intention to do so. That's because we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to…

I'm not interested in the semantic argument. Emily Bazelon called The Guardian out this week on the Slate political podcast, as have many others; this is now a mainstream criticism of how The Guardian reported the story. Either way: the original notion that NSA had direct access to the servers that actually operate Google Mail has been found to be unsupported by the evidence published thus far. I call this out contin…

NSA has all the access they need. Which side of the property line their equipment resides on is a detail. Google is bound by what they're treating as a lawful order, to lie, as is anyone on NSA's team. If NSA doesn't have hardware inside Google, they have what they need to read the data at the boundaries of the Google system.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that when you call something "a peculiar brand of corporatism", you're saying something equivalent to "a label that thus far exists only in my mind". Is there a more direct, refutable way you could construct your claim? How would anyone falsify your argument otherwise? You know what else is a (very) peculiar brand of corporatism? "Not corporatism".

I suppose I did not spell this out clear enough for you. A traditional corporatist could be accused of trying to bring corporations up to the same level as governments. Rayiner seems to be playing at the idea of bringing governments up to the level of corporations. Despite appearing to be opposing positions, it should not take a rocket scientist to find the common ground. Of course if you have no interest in doing so…

What does it mean for a corporation to be at "the same level as" a government?

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#196
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd need to see the context to know if the Guardian was wrong where they used that exact word, or were simply describing something that exists with some companies or at another level of tapping.

A graf from Greenwald's original story: When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications of…

The 1st sentence seems fine: the companies have no practical way to withhold consent.

The phrasing "directly and unilaterally seize" seems exaggerated given the preponderance of current revelations and denials, but if Prism includes other not-yet-revealed acquisition methods, might still be substantially true. After all, the denials you're relying on are from company leaders who also said they've never heard of Prism.

I can believe Greenwald got overexcited in that phrasing, and trusted the slide deck (including as-yet-unreleased slides) too much. Just like perhaps Obama was a bit clumsy and overeager to reassure with his phrasing, "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls."

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#197
post #109

There's something sick and wrong in the semantics of how the laws have been interpreted here. The authorities seem to have decided that they can record anything they want, any time they want. The legal boundary is only crossed when somebody listens to the recording. So it is fine for them to slurp up every bit of data they can tap into and then retrospectively figure out which bits they were authorized to listen to (…

We need to hear what the NSAs version of listening is. Do algorithms parsing streams count as listening? Or only when a human sees it/hears it?

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#198
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying that Google's claims compete with NSA's. They don't.

Thanks for the response. See my reply to tptacek above. I probably should have said 'appear to compete' or similar, as reading them together does not lead to an easy answer - and there are a number of possibilities as to how you could interpret them.

Certainly true that there are a number of possibilities. The one that seems to make sense per Occam's Razor and the mass of evidence we now have is that Prism is an NSA-side "facade pattern" against a set of company-specific FISA/NSL-compliance APIs.

In NSA-speak this is "collection directly from the servers of $FOO" because there is no wiretap or other SIGINT or ELINT shenanigans. They ask, or the FISA Court compels by warrant, for a company to turn over information they have, the company sends it over electronically.

Prism, on the NSA end, takes care to feed that information that is sent over to whichever analyst is working the case, patches up company-specific details so the analyst doesn't have to worry about it, etc. But they don't have feelers onto every datacenter owned by those 9 companies so there is no "direct access to data", as has been errorneously and loosely parroted around.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#199
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really unfortunate that most people read 1984 as teenagers (I did). I went back to it as an adult, somewhat expecting it to be a let down. What I found was quite the opposite, there's a lot more nuance in that book than would really be absorbed by high school students being forced to read it. "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you beg…

Do not stereotype teenagers. I am merely fifteen years old, and if you take a look through my comment thread you may find more insight than you expected. Yes, most in my generation are shallow and passive; but that doesn't mean all are. There are some intellectuals on the fringes.

I'm 20 now, and I think I'm smart. When I was 15 I did as well, but now I think I was pretty stupid at the time.

No doubt the pattern will continue at 25.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#200
post #19
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THE MAN in the middle

A huge portion of all Google Mail connections can't be MITM'd even if NSA has an SSL CA banked, because Google baked the identity of their public key into their browser (using public key pinning). File that under "things you don't do if your goal is to cooperate with NSA surveillance", by the way.

It would be possible to backdoor the SSL offload devices such that passively intercepted connections were decryptable.

The revelations of the past week seem to put this category of idea back on the map.

Post reply on HN