Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#31

Post by 3327 »

manmal wrote: post #22
northwest wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet. Of course you are joking. But if you think about it: If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically : If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".

That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).

Not that I am pro him or not but if everyone was held accountable for the dumb stuff they said in their early 20's everyone would have a sick of shit hanging around their necks.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#32

Post by lisper »

I wonder if Senator Chambliss realizes that he's being played.

"I have been assured ... that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.” Chambliss said that any monitoring of emails is purely “accidental.”

You can't have it both ways. Either there is "no capability", or the monitoring is "accidental." It can't be both.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#33

Post by Amadou »

danenania wrote: post #20
falk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all in the language they use. They are scooping up all the phone calls, emails, etc. they possibly can. They then go get a warrant to process that information or so they can use it in court and what have you. And like you said, getting a warrant is a joke. Especially through the FISA court.

But Greenwald is claiming that there is nothing technical stopping low level analysts from snooping on anyone without any form of authorization. This directly counters the line put forth by the national security establishment and its apologists since the revelations began.

What Chambliss said in that quote does not contradict Greenwald's claim. When Chambliss uses the word "capability" he means legal capability. Greenwald is arguing that the enforcement of that requirement is trivial - equivalent to a checkbox that says "Do you have a warrant Yes/No?"

I am entirely willing to believe that Chambliss is simply technologically naive enough that he doesn't even know how to ask the NSA if the enforcement is meaningful. He's also probably quite happy to take them at their word, despite all their history of using their own dictionary to define their words.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#34

Post by dictum »

lisper wrote: post #32

I wonder if Senator Chambliss realizes that he's being played. "I have been assured ... that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.” Chambliss said that any monitoring of emails is purely “accidental.” You can't have it both ways. Either there is "no capability", or the monitoring is "accidental." It can't be both.

Every response from the NSA and people speaking on their behalf, both before and after the Snowden leaks, has basically been

1. A denial that they have the "capability" to do [insert method of mass surveilance], leaving open the possibility that "capability" means legal authorization;

2. A quasi admission that maybe the surveillance happens (Clapper: "not wittingly").

In other words, "we're collecting everything, but we'll only inspect your data if you're not American, or have a relationship of any kind with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect."

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#35

Post by rhizome »

3327 wrote: post #31
manmal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).

Not that I am pro him or not but if everyone was held accountable for the dumb stuff they said in their early 20's everyone would have a sick of shit hanging around their necks.

It's not meaningless, though. I would say that the reason is not that it betrays what they really think, but that older people learn not to say it out loud. In this sense you would essentially be saying, "don't judge him until he learns to hide his true thoughts."

I'm not saying this is what you truly feel, but you relate a cultural convention that perpetuates a stereotype that young people are stupid.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#36

Post by northwest »

3327 wrote: post #31
manmal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).

Not that I am pro him or not but if everyone was held accountable for the dumb stuff they said in their early 20's everyone would have a sick of shit hanging around their necks.

Sure, we say and do dumb things when we're young. But that was not my point. I don't hold him accountable for that per se.

What I was saying is: I doubt that, at the time Zuckerberg launched FB, he was thinking "privacy is already dead, so let's see how we can make things better again for everybody" when at that same time he, being 20, said those stupid things.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#37

Post by greenyoda »

lisper wrote: post #32

I wonder if Senator Chambliss realizes that he's being played. "I have been assured ... that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.” Chambliss said that any monitoring of emails is purely “accidental.” You can't have it both ways. Either there is "no capability", or the monitoring is "accidental." It can't be both.

The other possibility is that he's complicit in the NSA's game.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#38

Post by junto »

malandrew wrote: post #24
falk wrote: post #4

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to. 2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald. 3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

As a very smart former lawyer, I have no doubt that he's going to ask every question, knowing full well the answer to the question and that those testifying on behalf of the NSA are going to be left with no choice but to lie either directly or through some sort of doublespeak. They should assume that everything he asks or talks about is backed up by evidence. Only one of two things are likely to happen on Wednesday.…

Ok, conspiracy theories gone crazy here but here goes...

GreEnwald is exposed down there in Brazil. A petty street robbery gone bad, a car accident, or a simple "sudden" heart attack, could all make this into a nothing event.

People in this kind of position have habits of "committing suicide" from the "stress":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

I would put money on the act that Gareth Williams worked on, or knew about both Tempora and Prism.

   "Williams' working life, after graduating with a first 
   in mathematics in 1996 aged 17, was spent in Cheltenham
   at GCHQ, Britain’s signals intelligence agency. He joined
   in 2001 after completing a PhD in computer science at
   Manchester University. His final role in GCHQ had been
   designing "practical applications for emerging
   technologies".

   In 2007, he applied to become a secret agent by 
   transferring to SIS, the UK's human intelligence agency 
   responsible for spies and spy recruitment. He was put 
   through a series of aptitude and skill tests. He failed.
   He also attended Black Hat 16 the same year, according 
   to an SIS witness, presumably also then staying on to 
   attend Defcon."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/gareth_williams_inqu...

Maybe he was Snowden part 1: the failed mission.

End conspiracy theory...

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#39

Post by scrrr »

Greenwald and Snowden are my heroes of the year (at least). The amount of lies in .gov and Internet-industry is amazing.

I hope none of the involved politicians and companies ever speak of "privacy" or "security" again. It'd be embarrassing.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#40

Post by zaroth »

Amadou wrote: post #33
danenania wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Greenwald is claiming that there is nothing technical stopping low level analysts from snooping on anyone without any form of authorization. This directly counters the line put forth by the national security establishment and its apologists since the revelations began.

What Chambliss said in that quote does not contradict Greenwald's claim. When Chambliss uses the word "capability" he means legal capability. Greenwald is arguing that the enforcement of that requirement is trivial - equivalent to a checkbox that says "Do you have a warrant Yes/No?" I am entirely willing to believe that Chambliss is simply technologically naive enough that he doesn't even know how to ask the NSA if t…

I think you're right, which of course makes the entire statement a tautology. "The NSA has assured me it's not legal to do anything that's not legal." Thanks for sharing.

Never mind that it's not legal to read emails, except with a single court order saying that it's legal to read EVERYONE'S emails. Which I believe they have.

The main problem is the "business records" clause in PATRIOT must be found unconstitutional. If it is somehow constitutional, then there is no privacy.

Post reply on HN