NSA Chose Invasive Phone Analysis Option 307
Encrypted Anonymous Coward writes "The Baltimore Sun reveals the existence of an interesting experimental NSA program codenamed ThinThread from the late 90`s. The program involved link analysis of traffic data, with a twist; The phone numbers from the U.S. would only be analyzed in an encrypted form. This way the analysis would potentially be possible under existing privacy laws, according to the people behind the program. The NSA could gather further unencrypted details if there was evidence of a threat. Political infighting seems to have dropped an interesting and respectful program from the books."
Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonimity isn't really privacy. When I say "I love you" or "I'm going to kill you" I want to know it's ME saying THAT to THAT PERSON who is meant to receive it, and to no one else. I don't wanna be an anonymous coward sending my thoughts over to the NSA and get busted because they can look up my IP if I've been a bad boy...
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
However, people demand security. Often security and privacy conflict with one another and we as a society need to decide where that line needs to be drawn. If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
Not that I'm arguing a legal point with you; I'm actually not sure whether phone conversations are directly covered by the 4th amendment, other than the rea
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
Is there a difference in whether I send the letter by USPS (gov't entity) or UPS/FedEx?
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
No. This is decidedly false considering anything you do/say in public can be used against you without a warrant. The air inside your house is contained within your house, which you own. If you're so freaking loud that someone could hear you across the street, that could be used against you as well.
--trb
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously at the time of writing, phone lines didn't exist, but it's reasonable to see that as an "effect" belonging to an individual.
The switches that route your call, and record the source/destination/time, do not belong to you; they belong to the phone company. The same could be said about a written letter - the letter and its verbal content are yours, but the information about where the letter came from and where it is going are necessarily shared with the Postal Service, which then possesses that information and can do with it as it pleases.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh...what about the fourth amendment?
I would consider monitoring my phone calls to be an unreasonable search, without probable cause.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Informative)
One of the scariest/funniest things out of the Attorney General's mouth in response to the revelations back in December, was that the searches* "weren't unreasonable", and thus didn't need warrants.
*phone taps
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Bear in mind that quartering was not a military necessity but a way of finding and uprooting dissent at it's roots--the common household. They didn't just quarter at random. Suspected sympathizers were often specifically targeted for the simple reason that having a few brutish and nosey soldiers from the government in your house either makes you clean up your affairs or start explaining yourself in front of a judge.
The third amendment was a response to a specific type of attack on privacy by a people which had been traumatized by it. You can bet your powdered wig that if England had tried to read the correspondence of every suspected revolutionary (wire-tapping) or recorded data about every conversation that ever occurred in a public square and the parties involved (phone database), that those too would have been specifically mentioned as well.
Kept in its historical context, the third amendment represents a limit to the imposition of households and the government's ability to intrude upon the private lives of ordinary citizens.
But you know what? What about the Ninth Amendment?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Any reasonable person can conclude that a right to privacy exists on some level. We shouldn't need a document of finite length, written over 200 years ago to tell us exactly what rights we, by virtue of our humanity, possess. In fact, this ridiculous argument we're having over whether a right to privacy exists or doesn't is the entire reason that the ninth Amendment was devised.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84, said it best (emphasis mine):
"[I] affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not content that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it [an enumerated Bill of Rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power."
-Grym
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
My comment here has nothing to do with anything, but why the hell not? Why is there less of a push for a privacy amendment than there is for a let-Arnold-run-for-president amendment? Frigging ridiculous. Someone with a law degree, or at least anyone more electable than an unemployed programmer, please get on top of that.
If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.
I bet
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Informative)
See: Loving v. Virginia [wikipedia.org], Griswald v. Connecticut [wikipedia.org] and Eisenstadt v. Baird [wikipedia.org], among others.
too many ems (Score:2)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
I think there should be clear legislation on where our rights lie there. Because why the Supreme Court gives us pr
Constitution, who needs it ! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Member -- (Date of Admission)
United States of America -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Re:Constitution, who needs it ! (Score:2)
Iran last month flat-out said the UN was a joke and the UN has no response.
I'd like to see a good, solid world government. It doesn't exist. UN laws mean nothing, especially here.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Well, actually, in 1965 the Constitutional basis for a right to privacy was recognized explicitly by the Supreme Court. It began with the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479). In short, they explained that the Constitution has what are called "penumbral rights"---rights that are inferrable by virtue of being necessary precursors to the rights more explicitly spelled out.
From Griswold v. Connecticut:
"The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions 'of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.' We recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a 'right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people.' See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960)
The explicit rights that grant a right to privacy as a precursor are the 4th, 5th, and the 9th, though the Justices said (and have upheld numerous times since, fyi) that the right to privacy may be inferred from other amendments as well, it's just that the 4th, 5th, and the 9th are particularly obvious in their inference.
So, yes, since 1965, U.S. Law has upheld EXPLICITLY that we have a Contitutional right to privacy.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
Um, yes there is. The 9th amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
I heard Pat Roberts (chair of Sen. Intel. Ctte.) on the radio this morning, being quoted as saying that some secrets need to be kept secret despite people's desire to know. So it's good to hear that the government does value some privacy. Just not yours.
Bruce Schneier says it better than I could (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you only have the rights that are explicitly defined in your constitution?
However, people demand security. Often security and privacy conflict with one another and we as a society need to decide where that line needs to be drawn. If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.I think that Bruce Schneier's recent article in Wired [wired.com] is one of the most reasoned and insightful responses to your line of argumentation.
As he states, it is not a debate over security versus privacy - it is liberty versus tyranny.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:4, Informative)
Did you know that some of the Founders didn't want to include a Bill of Rights? All were in favor of human rights (at least for white people, sigh) but some were afraid that if they wrote down a list then later generations might mistake it for an exhaustive list and might begin violating rights that hadn't been written down.
They put in the Ninth Amendment to spell out in black and white that all other rights were still guaranteed even if they didn't get a slot in the Bill of Rights. They did that to make absolutely sure that nobody in the future could ever disparage a right by saying "it's not in the Constitution".
>If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.
Why not? Aside from the "if they've got something why don't they get FISA warrants" question, why can't we bitch when the government finds plots (without mass domestic spying) and refuses to even ask for warrants? [time.com]
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that the point? Known nutjob Abdullah Jihadi calls the following people A, B
Suspected nutjob Faruk Ibn Dijjaj calls B, E, C, G,
Known nutjob Muhamad Abu Majnun calls B, H, I, J
So if I was analyzing this data, I want to know who "B" is, as well as anyone else who talks to B. I'd also be interested in C, although from this trivial example, he looks less interesting. This is, of course, a massive oversimplification. Who knows if network analysis would actually work?
Obviously
In that example, get a warrant. (Score:4, Insightful)
That way, when they both implicate "B", you can immediately get a warrant to find out who "B" is talking to.
Also, you might find out that "C" is a "nutjob", too. Then you can get a warrant for his phone.
All very easy and all very legal under existing laws.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
That is pretty much my point. If you didn't know anything about the numbers in the first place, you wouldn't have a starting point to branch out from. You also have to consider that terrorist organizations probably aren't planning things in a short time frame so seeing a bunch of calls to/from a suspicious number may occur over months/years. I'd also guess that the "bad guys" are probably going to use dis
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Orrrrrrrr... you get a warrant to bust down the known nutjob's door, seize his property, subpoena his phone records and interrogate everyone he's called. Maybe then you'll have the proof needed to arrest his friend the suspected nutjob. And maybe you'll discover that B wasn't really a terrorist, but you've saved him from being blackmailed into blowing himself up. Or hey, maybe B is pizza hut. Terrorists have to eat too.
But in the end, you've removed a known terrorist from the wild, interrupt
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
I lol'd
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Sorry, I don't mean to be flipant, but gathering my confidential call data and looking for criminal activity in my mind is as much a search as a pat down. The fact that they're not actually listening to me talk sexy with my girlfriend is nice, but it doesn't correct the problem that a the state would be analysing the time and phone number of every call I participate in then they'd be making a determination of whether or not I was probably a criminal. When the government conducts routine searches of our routine daily activities then that, in my mind, is both unreasonable, and, as a result, unconstitutional.
TW
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is and always has been the potential for abuse.
The FISA court exists for a reason you know. Why? Not because of some theoretical use of wiretaps to infringe on privacy.... because they were activly tapping the phone calls of people like Dr Martin Luther King in every hotel that he visited trying to dig up dirt on him.
This isn't conspiracy theory, its conspiracy fact. It is a matter of congressional record that wiretaps were indeed used to follow innocent people for political reasons.
Besides, sure, today its just intelligence on terrorists. However, once the system to do it is there, the ability to abuse it is there. All it takes is one unscrupulous operator, or a little pressure from a director, or dare I say, a secret presidential memo, to cause the system to be abused to any number of ends.
This is why we need oversight, and we need to hold these people responsible for what they do. If they can wiretap with impunity, then why not wiretap with impunity? If there is no punishment, then there is a lower bar to doing it.
Frankly, I think these programs should be outed, and every signle person involved, all the way up, should be indicted.
That goes for this program (if it was indeed illegal, if not they should fix the law), and the presidents wiretapping program thats been in the news. Intictments and impeachments are what should be going on right now.
-Steve
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:2)
I call BS. If it doesn't give them much to work from then why do they want to do it? Obviously some valuable information can be found out this way, or they wouldn't be doing it at all.
Stop drinking the koolaid.
NSA track record (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NSA track record (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think it's more likely that the records are going to be stolen from the NSA than from your phone company, you're probably vastly overestimating the security and hiring practices at the phone company.
Re:NSA track record (Score:4, Interesting)
Depending on the circumstances, how do you make the distinction between the NSA and the "wrong hands"? =)
But seriously, ThinThread as originally constituted contains the mechanism necessary for oversight. It's amazing that they dispensed with that part of the program, especially now in hindsight when the Administration is embroiled in a scandal. What were they thinking? Are they that arrogant? That stupid?
On condition of anonymity (Score:5, Funny)
Let's hope they didn't talk on the phone...
Can We Get the NSA involved in F/OSS? (Score:2, Funny)
"...an interesting experimental NSA program codenamed ThinThread..."
3 lettered government agencies seem to be able to come up with cool codenames for their projects. Maybe they have a coterie of fine arts graduates, dressed in casual black outfits, drinking exotic coffee drinks, whose only job is to come up with cool names for projects.
I wonder if we can get them on board F/OSS projects in a naming capacity? F/OSS projects usually have some halfbaked, nerdy name like GIMP .Maybe if F/OSS projects had real
Re:Can We Get the NSA involved in F/OSS? (Score:3, Funny)
*ducks*
Re:Can We Get the NSA involved in F/OSS? (Score:2)
They have specialists for that (Score:2)
There's a very good reason for having a separate department to make up the names: it ensures that you're not accidentally giving away information about the project in its name. The name is usually unclas
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
U.S. Citizen: "Don't I have rights? You can't just beat me with that bat!"
NSA: "Don't worry, we've encrypted it."
Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
The jolly, candy-like button...
HA! (Score:2, Funny)
Trust not (Score:5, Insightful)
Says who? The NSA?
Who defines what a potential threat is? A judge of the court, or some bureaucrats in the NSA?
Why would we trust an agaency known to play games with the law to have access to this data? A layer of separation (the encryption) doesn't change the fact that the data is still there for misuse. Just because it's harder to tie to an individual doesn't mean it can be misused.
All the encryption does is make it harder for a rogue/spy to get access to actual phone numbers. Systemic abuse or misuse of the data is not prevented at all. And frankly, systemic abuse/misuse frightens me much more than one person being able to misuse the data.
Re:Trust not (Score:2)
Further, there was another (discarded) component of the program that would have automated oversight.
Would or could (if they decide to bring this back) any of this be perfect and avoid abuses? Maybe, maybe not. But it would be a hell of a lot better than the current set up, which is constitutional abuse in and of itself.
Still tracable (Score:3, Insightful)
So September 11th.. (Score:2, Interesting)
We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't stand on a soapbox here and force my opinion on others but I think it is time for a very serious debate over what is acceptable to give up in the name of security, what secrets we will let our government keep from us and what checks and balances need to be in place.
I think we are in trouble of letting "terrorism" be the ultimate excuse for any unpopular move by the government and it sadens me to see that the events of 2001 have changed us so much.
P.S.
The latest Justifications I have heard for the NSA wire taping are indicative of the problem... saying "we havent had a terrorist atack because of this program" is like saying "the wolly mammoth repelant is working" unless you can show proof that attacks have been thwarted .
Re:We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:2)
I hate it when people justify using the calls intercepted on Sept. 10 but not translated until Sept. 12 that say stuff like "the match is tomorrow" or whatever and say "See! That's why we need wiretapping!"
... we got those from
No,
Re:We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:2)
With all the effort it would take to get Americans to hold and respect a serious debate your energies would be better spent solving the problem. There is no way for serious debate at the highest levels of government. The people in power have no incentive as they only stand to loose. In their brains it's loosers who want to hold debates. And who wants to be seen on stage with loosers.
No, what is neede
Re:We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:3, Interesting)
We had that debate - it was held in secret and American citizens lost. It would be nice to think that electing a different party to control the government would settle the issue, or turn the clock back, or
This administration has mauled constitutional interpretation like a Dutch macacque and the next one only has to be a hair b
Re:Future options (Score:2)
Re:Future options (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, the founding documents of this nation were very much a suicide pact.
The Declaration of Independence said it quite explicitly:
And for the Support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honour.
Or, to put it more succinctly, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death".
Life without liberty is not life worth living, and the founding fathers knew quite well that they would either succeeed or be killed as traitors.
And of course the irony is that the only way we would commit "suicide" (ie, kill OURSELVES, as opposed to being destroyed by external forces) is to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights, exactly as we're doing so well right now. No terrorist bomb can accomplish that task, we're doing it all on our own.
Re:We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether or not attacks were thwarted by a warrantless wiretapping program; whether it works or not is not an issue. What is at issue, then?
Okay, have we caught anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would just be nice to know for ONCE the consequences of the actions other than reading about how ordinary people can be spied upon by their Government.
Re:Okay, have we caught anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Absence of evidence is evidence. So they say. (Score:4, Interesting)
In this person's world, by definition, the public should never be able to point to an intelligence accomplishment. Our best response to the existence of stuff like these NSA capers is to keep our heads down. So said my brother-in-law, who had previously explained to me his rationale by which Nixon was the best President we've ever had.
One can see the obvious stepping off point to "the real traitors are the ones who *reveal* our secret, extra-constitutional prison system."
Confronted with evidence of past incompetence on the part of the CIA -- I mentioned the massive expense of the Glomar Explorer misadventure [the-kgb.com], which got us basically nothing new (old details about an aging vintage Soviet sub) for the staggering money involved -- John simply suggested that there must've been a lot more to the story, and that it obviously succeeded because we didn't know about the successful parts. (Whereupon he spun straw into gold and disappeared like Colonel Flag on M*A*S*H -- "like the wind" -- from our family. I believe he's living as an expat in China now.)
Re:Okay, have we caught anyone? (Score:2)
We, as in the US. No. Well, we found Saddam in a hole, but we can't find anybody else. They did find the supposed "mastermind" behind the 9/11/01 attacks in Pakistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohamme d [wikipedia.org]
They just aren't that good at this stuff, but persistence is the key.
Re:Okay, have we caught anyone? (Score:2)
I normally don't reply to an AC, but I guess this is here for others to see.
The US will NEVER catch Osama. Even if they did, they would "throw him back into the sea".
Based on public perception, the capturing of Osama would symbolically end the "War on Terror", and the government would have to create a new enemy, but Osama is good enough of one for now. At least 5-7 more years worth, maybe more.
The fact that the
Re:Okay, have we caught anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay, have we caught anyone? (Score:2)
His name is Osama bin Laden, as in the oil family Bin Ladens. Bush would never harm a hair on his head.
Selective memory (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't anyone here even remember ECHELON [wikipedia.org]? Stop drinking the Kool Aid.
Re:Selective memory (Score:2)
ECHELON is not for domestic surveillance (though it is possible, even likely, that it has been used or is being used for domestic surveillance, whether directly or via intelligence-swap with the UK).
In theory, the NSA domestic surveillance programs are very different from ECHELON, and while discussion of ECHELON is relevant, calling slashdotters a bunch of Kool-aid drinkers is pointless, and doesn't apply here at all. You've used it as
Agreed, also (Score:2)
do please correct me if you know this not to be true...
[ramble]
quis custodiet custodes is the phrase I think I'm looking for... though my memory is a less than it ought...
Being the 'good guy' is almost always a losing proposition, except in Hayes code movies and Comics code comics. There is always someone who will say "look at that sucker..." and take advantage of some possibility for profit when they think they 'can get away
Re:Selective memory (Score:2)
I think it's safe to infer that "calling into" the United States would be done from outside of the United States. So why does Bush not use Echelon? It seems that it was designed for this situation. It's purported to have been used to track Khalid Shaikh Mohammed down in Pakistan.
Seems Echelon was doing its job - monitoring foreign communications - just fine.
Call connected thru the NSA (Score:2)
"interesting and respectful"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"interesting and respectful"? (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Big freaking deal if the numbers are 'encrypted' or not. The problem is not that the NSA knows people's phone numbers - that's why we have phonebooks. The problem is that they have this huge database that lets anyone with access draw all kinds of inferences about people's relationships with each other. The right to freely associate is not free at all if it means that you end up on some big list in a government computer (or anyone else's computer for that matter).
Having your phone number encrypted when it is in the database doesn't help a bit because the encrypted number is just another unique identifier. Its the equivalent of saying that they used social security numbers in place of the phone numbers.
NSA is not supposed to operate inside the USA (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that any monitoring that originates and terminates in the United States prior to Bush's executive order is illegal (it's also illegal after Bush's order, IMO) unless Clinton also gave an executive order to permit it.
From wikipedia:
Not quite... (Score:3, Informative)
The CIA, for example, operates within the U.S. performing some functions like those it has overseas. It attempts to recruit foreign assets who will work with them upon return to their home countries, interviews Americans that travel overseas to countries of interest on a strictly voluntary basis, and supports and cooperates
Anonymous Resolution Engine (Score:3, Informative)
Technical details of such a system are documented in "Vegas 911" in April's issue of the IEEE Spectrum.
The article document's Jeffery Jonas' development of an anonymized system for the NSA based on his security work in Las Vegas. The work is now being done by IBM. The example in the article demonstrates how anonymized cruise passenger data could be compared with an anonymized watch list by a trusted third party. If the trusted third party finds correlations in the data, the government agency can get a warrant for the specific passenger data from the cruise line.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/apr06/3171 [ieee.org] (registration required)
I wish the government had a better sense of humor (Score:3, Insightful)
ThinThread was designed to address two key challenges: The NSA had more information than it could digest, and, increasingly, its targets were in contact with people in the United States whose calls the agency was prohibited from monitoring.
a) they are spying on so many people that they can't even process the data. I've been under that assumption for quite some time, and now its clear. Hey, its a win for us.
b) they are spying on people they can, but the important stuff is "off limits"
Huh?
I'm beginning to think that these people are just like peeping toms or people rubernecking at an accident on the side of the road. They clearly don't even seem to know what the fuck they are doing, it just looks cool, they know they shouldn't do it, but they simply can't help themselves. What a bunch of children.
Now, although the article has not much more info, the article seems to imply that the NSA is going about their surveillance of innocent people, but to get around that pesky 4th amendment*, they are anomalizing (correct word?) the data via some encryption thingy, and if the random stuff looks interesting enough, I guess they have to get a warrant (or not??) to decrypt the data into something real.
Now, at first that sounded OK, but then I thought about it. Isn't the data already anonymous and anomalized (??) by default? I mean, even if they have my name, say George Bush, and phone number, and the name and phone number of the guy I called, say Aleister Crowley. Unless the NSA already knows both of these people, that data is still anonymous. It would take a little more investigation to determine if it was George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, or just a namesake or the real deal themselves.
So, in other words, get a fucking warrant, and stop wasting my tax money randomly looking at "chatter" of innocent people. The process goes like this. 1) Find out something is wrong 2) Get an idea of who is doing the wrong and develop "probable cause" 3) Get a warrant, and go after the bad guys.
Otherwise, sit on your asses and drink coffee or eat a donut. Don't waste my tax money and be a peeping tom.
Back to that pesky 4th amendment. If you haven't seen it yet, check out the new dipshit that is the new head of the NSA:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha
one more thing (didn't see page 2) (Score:2)
Another humorous quote:
Sources say the NSA's existing system for data-sorting has produced a database clogged with corrupted and useless information.
Be scared, very scared. What dipshits.
Old Technique (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it "interesting". Any social researcher knows this is an effective method to circumvent Institutional Review Boards.
For example, if I wanted to record how students are using a certain web-based system, and then publish my findings, I would need to get IRB approval and have each student agree to an "Informed Consent" document.
Instead, a third party, such as the system provider, can gather the data
But is it effective (Score:2)
Re:But is it effective (Score:2)
By the way, how effective has the invasion of Afghanistan been in catching Osama so far?
I'm not even going to bother answering your straw man argument about how no one cared that the NSA was spying on people in Kenya so they shouldn't care if they're spying on Americans.
Re:But is it effective (Score:2)
Bureaucratic shuffle (Score:2, Funny)
I've said this for years: (Score:2)
Fire everyone at the NSA.
At least you'll feel cool while being spied on.
anonomous strip search (Score:4, Interesting)
Too much 'beautification' in this sentence (Score:3, Insightful)
It should not be 'NSA Chose Invasive Phone Analysis Option'
Its correct saying is 'NSA have violated your privacy'
Red Herring (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Herring (with formatting; sorry!) (Score:3, Insightful)
Encrypted?
By whom? Not by me, that's for sure.
Who controls the decryption? Again not somebody who answers to me.
Encryption is not a magic incantation that protects secrecy.
Encrypting some data produces some other data, which in itself is useless--you have to reverse the process to get the original data back.
Encryption happens to be a special sort of process can only be reversed under certain conditions (when the correct keys are present).
You don't need a technical understanding of the latest encryption technology to understand this. It's common freaking sense.
Somebody has spied on you. They promise to keep the results of their spying a secret. Therefore, your rights have not been violated.
Seriously--does anybody buy this? Are we that stupid?
Oh, yeah--this message has been encrypted, so it's safe. See?
Rapelcgrq?
Ol jubz? Abg ol zr, gung\'f sbe fher.
Jub pbagebyf gur qrpelcgvba? Ntnva abg fbzrobql jub nafjref gb zr.
Rapelcgvba vf abg n zntvp vapnagngvba gung cebgrpgf frperpl.
Rapelcgvat fbzr qngn cebqhprf fbzr bgure qngn, juvpu va vgfrys vf hfryrff--lbh unir gb erirefr gur cebprff gb trg gur bevtvany qngn onpx.
Rapelcgvba unccraf gb or n fcrpvny fbeg bs cebprff pna bayl or erirefrq haqre pregnva pbaqvgvbaf (jura gur pbeerpg xrlf ner cerfrag).
Lbh qba\'g arrq n grpuavpny haqrefgnaqvat bs gur yngrfg rapelcgvba grpuabybtl gb haqrefgnaq guvf. Vg\'f pbzzba sernxvat frafr.
Fbzrobql unf fcvrq ba lbh. Gurl cebzvfr gb xrrc gur erfhygf bs gurve fclvat n frperg. Gurersber, lbhe evtugf unir abg orra ivbyngrq.
Frevbhfyl--qbrf nalobql ohl guvf? Ner jr gung fghcvq?
Bu, lrnu--guvf zrffntr unf orra rapelcgrq, fb vg\'f fnsr. Frr?
Re:Data is Data (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, kind of what I was thinking. I imagine a sufficiently experienced/intelligent/devious operator would only have to perform one or two further sub-queries on that hashed information in order to find personally identifying information ... and from there get the info that was encrypted via public sources, if necessary. How do you protect against this kind of (mis)use?
Re:Data is Data (Score:2)
Re:Data is Data (Score:2)
Re:thats OK then, AKA respectful my ass! (Score:5, Interesting)
See, technically the only thing that stops the police from tapping every phone (other than respect for the community) is that it's illegal to do so and any evidence gathered is wholly worthless.
Re:thats OK then, AKA respectful my ass! (Score:2)
a) care if the evidence they're collecting is admissible in court, because they actually want the people they're collecting evidence on to be prosecuted in a court, and
b) might actually be prosecuted themselves for illegal actions they take, because they inconveniently don't have the power to deny prosecutors and/or Internal Affairs officers the security clearances they need to investigate.
Re:thats OK then, AKA respectful my ass! (Score:2)
Re:thats OK then, AKA respectful my ass! (Score:4, Interesting)
You're crapping on an effective means of controlling who gets access to data because there's a possibility it might not be used properly in some instances. If it's not used properly, then we have the situation we already are in. At the very least, we can file this under "better and under no circumstances worse."
Whether or not we can label it "good" is beyond the scope of me.
Re:thats OK then, AKA respectful my ass! (Score:2)
I disagree. If such an ineffective 'protection' is enough to make such surveillence politically palatable that it is allowed to continue, then it is indeed worse than the original program.
Re:OMG! (Score:2)
Re:OMG! (Score:2)
[/sarcasm]
Re:The Number To Call For Questions: +1, Seditious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So Overblown (Score:2)
It's pretty much standard procedure to try and inflict as much "revenge" damage to your enemy if the mission fails, regardless of who "you" and "enemy" are.