271–280 of 641 posts
We should start hold our public servant to task for lying to the American people about these programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how are they getting all Facebook private messages and Gmail? Perhaps you missed the news about PRISM? :)
This presentation is from 2008. According to the presentation on PRISM Facebook joined the program on 3 June 2009. That would indicate that the searches here are based, most likely, not on participation by Facebook but by passive sniffing of HTTP traffic and then session reconstruction.
I think PRISM is just the public-private partnership aspect of this, where they have to go to service providers and install kit, as they can't tap SSL traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. Remember, it's not a silver bullet or a secret security sauce.
That's true, but I believe, we need all the bullets we can get and use them in parallel. It's never about either-or.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can they feel good about what they are doing? You'd be amazed. https://twitter.com/_nothingtohide
Seems to me that people aren't too concerned of nameless, faceless people looking through their stuff so long as people they know (parents, spouse, friends..) don't see it.
THAT certainly wouldn't risk an apathetic response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main thing that this new release reveals is not the scope of the data collection, but confirmation that analysts are given free reign to perform queries. Until this, there was an outside chance that the system required all database queries to be signed by a Judge prior to execution. This is not the case though; all queries are processed immediately, with essentially nothing more than a repo commit message as just…
Exactly. There were a lot of people from the government that came out in the past few months and said there are checks and balances and a lot of oversight in these processes. That clearly isn't true. It will be interesting to go back through all of those statements with this new information/evidence on hand. Greenwald has timed this well. He put out enough information early on to give Snowden opponents enough rope wi…
Is this information the NSA could've attained left to their own devices, or is this sort of stuff only accessible with help from service providers, eg Facebook and Google? What I'm trying to ask is: with all the hullabaloo Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc have made about individual, manual reviews of information requests, are we still being lied to? I suspect that we obviously haven't been told the whole story…
The answer will always be "yes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how are they getting all Facebook private messages and Gmail? Perhaps you missed the news about PRISM? :)
This presentation is from 2008. According to the presentation on PRISM Facebook joined the program on 3 June 2009. That would indicate that the searches here are based, most likely, not on participation by Facebook but by passive sniffing of HTTP traffic and then session reconstruction.
So they didn't have access to private messages, they just intercepted internet traffic and relied on it being unencrypted. Facebook didn't always enforce https by default like it does now
>How do I find a strong-selector for a known target? >How do I find a cell of terrorists that has no known connection to strong-selectors? >Answer: Look for anomalous events >E.g. Someone whose language is out of place for the region they are in >Someone who is using encryption >Someone searching the web for suspicious stuff Lovely. Suspicious stuff and encryption. But wait! There's more! >Show me all the VPN startup…
I'd like to know where they are keeping these "over 300 terrorists" that have been captured due to this program. How is one labeled a terrorist by this program I wonder?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is overwhelming. Even when you always hear the claims about we knew this was going on, somehow it is still shocking when you see it all laid out infront of you with screenshots and the capabilities described. It has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine recently to see self-aggrandizing comments from users around the net about how "we should have known" and "none of this is new." I'm a practically addicted news j…
You're both right. If you read the PATRIOT Act, it's easy to look backwards and see that the things we're becoming aware of now are logical extensions of what was being asked for way back then. It is, however, VERY easy not to have been able to have that foresight, and I think that the insights people were expecting the government to have been constrained by the fact that all the information of value is collected by…