NSA To Datamine Social Networking Sites 346
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has discovered that the NSA is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in Internet technology -- specifically the forthcoming 'semantic web' championed by the Web standards organisation W3C -- to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals."
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Just not feeling it today... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, as much as I'd like to get all worked up about this issue and fire off another foamy-mouthed diatribe about the pervasiveness of government surveillance, Big Brother, etc., etc., I'm having difficulty justifying it. After all, this information is being posted out there, specifically for others to view. If you put a sign in your front yard declaring how much you hate the government, you shouldn't act too surprised when the government reads it.
Less false positives? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no problem with it (Score:2, Insightful)
How many times have you heard myspace on the news in a negative way? (except for "on the money", where they talk about how much it's worth) I don't mind it (NSA doing the datamining), being that you voluntarily post your information.
Public info (Score:5, Insightful)
But this does absolutely nothing for national security - which is the namesake of the agency. If a hate site goes up and government starts watching it to see if they're promoting violence, then fine. But creating profiles of everyone online is pointless. I'm sure they already have systems that scour the web and raise red flags. But putting my name and profile into a database at the NSA does nothing to aid security (I promise
This would be unreliable (Score:5, Insightful)
or am I missing something?
This is why we're fighting against REAL ID as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Add in RFID chipped drivers licenses (not to mention the new passports which DO use RFID), and you have the making of a complete "We know who you are, who you hang out with, and where you were last night" totalitarian tracking system.
This is why many of us are moving to New Hampshire, joining the http://freestateproject.org/ [freestateproject.org], and working against these things. We nearly stopped New Hampshire from participating in REALID (the Republican Senators are selling out the state for a mere $3 million...) and we're not done yet.
How is this any different ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Public info (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got a terrorist repellant rock that's worked just as well, it's even driven all the terrorists to Canada.
Re:Just not feeling it today... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was in high school in the late 60s (yes, I'm THAT old) we knew that pictures were being taken of all of us at the anti-war rallies. For those of us on a stage from time to time, we were pretty darn sure we weren't going to be allowed to run for governor any time soon.
Yes, but those pictures would be placed in a physical file, then dumped in a filing cabinet somewhere, to languish and moulder until someone thought to try and use the data in it for some purpose, where they would have to drag it out, collate and coordinate it with data from god-knows how many other files.
We're talking the use of high-speed computers running efficient data mining algorithms which could potentially sift through billions of pieces of data and track trends in matters of hours, not weeks or months. Not to mention, data would constantly be added, and the trends updated on a daily basis. And you wouldn't be going to any rallies to have this done to you -- it could swept out of your blog or right off your personal MySpace page. And even though you haven't a traitorous bone in your body, these data mining algorithms could link your data to the data gleaned from others and create what amounts to a case that you're party to something you're not.
Think of the recommendations Amazon makes when you purchase something: they track trends in the purchase of items, and make suggestions about other items that others have purchased when they purchased the item you've selected. Now take that and expand it.
What about friends who post your information? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to.. (Score:3, Insightful)
In 1984, I think you could not turn off the TV. In 2006, you can turn off your computer and TV and go outside.
You are not spied on inside your house without cause, but posting on the internet is like putting a big sign up in your front yard with information availalable to the public in general. If you don't like people reading your public information, don't post online or be careful what you post or post disinformation.
Yes, the NSA probably has hooks into banks and credit cards. Don't like that? Use cash / gold / barter for transactions. Nobody forces you to pay 18% interest on a credit card. The 15 page user agreement you signed probably has something in there about sharing your information with other parties. The credit card companies sell your information to marketing firms, why not the NSA?
If you want more secure communication, use PGP for email and SSH for tunneling around encrypted.
If you want even more secure communication, tempest proof your computer.
If you want secure communication, don't use the phone or a computer, or develop a one-tim-pad system.
Re:Just not feeling it today... (Score:2, Insightful)
People in power want to stay in power. Information is power. The fact that it is more easily attainable and sortable and searchable than it was in the 60s just means that it is even MORE likely to be used than it was then. Before it was too much trouble. Now it is an interesting programming problem. And, hey, if a wonk in the government stumbles across a possible terrorist and "SAVES THE DAY!" how much better for him/her.
Government will always act to govern....govern meaning to keep within bounds. Those in power get to set the bounds. We shouldn't be surprised at a misuse of power.
Two Words: Chilling Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The communist block's secret police didn't always have the indiscriminate brutality of Stalin's black cars and summary executions. It eventually evolved into something more "subtle": the widespread idea that somewhere they have a dossier of what you've said and who you've associated with. That even if you don't land in the Gulag (but then again, you might land there anyway) for going drinking again with comrade Piotr who speaks against the government, there'll be a page in your dossier for ever flagging you as sharing Piotr's subversive views. And it someday might bite you in the ass. E.g., maybe some day you won't get a promotion, or the party's approval to go abroad (on business or holyday), or whatever, just because somewhere there's a page in your dossier saying you're a subversive element and associate with traitors.
Now they didn't have the computers or manpower to actually do that on anywhere near the scale NSA is doing it, so the probability was really low, but the chilling effect was thorough anyway. People didn't want to take risks, so they tended to shut up.
But the effect was more perverse than that. Anyone who openly spoke against the government was seen as a potential agent provocateur, trying to bait you into saying something that'll come back to haunt you later. It's the most perverse thing you can do to prevent organized resistance: make sure that people don't trust each other. The guy shouting against the government might be paid by the government, or may be someone who has a petty grudge against you and tries to get you to say something you might regret.
Basically, the the most effective threats don't have to be explicit, but vague and implicit. People don't have to know that the government will swiftly come and send them to Guantanamo for speaking against it. The most effective threat is to just have everyone know that you know everything they did and everyone they associated with, that it's for ever attached to their file somewhere, and they don't know how or when you'll use it. Maybe you'll go for direct retaliation, or maybe their son won't be able to get a government scholarship/job/whatever because of what they said, or whatever. That unknown can pretty chilling while costing very little to maintain. (A lot less than trying to execute everyone who disaggrees, and creates less martyrs.)
And all this mining phone calls and social sites (a lot do have personal information, e.g., dating sites) has the potential to create a chilling effect of epic proportions. Is John speaking out against the new fascist government? Well, then better make sure you're not on his friends list or calling him every week. You don't want to have _that_ on your file, now do you? If you're an employer, better get rid of him on your own, because otherwise, you know, that relationship goes on your file too. Plus, you know they'll make a connection every time he calls you to take a sick day, or you call him to ask why the server isn't up. Better not risk losing a fat government contract just because you're associating with and employing undesirables.
Does that have to be accurate and filtered clean of character assassination bullshit? No, it's probably better if it isn't. Might get some people thinking they already have plenty of bogus or inaccurate stuff on their file anyway, so all the more reason not to add real stuff to it too. Better keep low and try not to trip their radar, than have to explain which stuff is bogus and which isn't
Re:Standard Waste of Our Tax $ (Score:2, Insightful)
scewing their data (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, you probably already broke the law just for posting an article counseling how to obstruct the NSA datamining program.
Someone is here on a visa or is an illegal alien? They should certainly be tracked. Legal citizens? Recognize that they have inalienable essential liberties which are guaranteed by the Constitution, and using the War Powers Act to try to justify your actions is NOT legal, and is certainly not ethical. In fact, encroaching our Constitutionally-protected rights when you have taken an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution actually amounts to treason.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence
hrmm.. where in that do you read that only LEGAL CITIZENS are created equal? Or that only legal citizens are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights.
The legal premise of the nation is that rigts were endowed upon ALL by the Creator. Unless immigrants have a different creator, then they too have those fundamental rights. The Constitution does not guarantee your rights. the Constitution merely acknowledges in writing that certain of them exist and acts as a contract between the Federal Government and the States and the People that the rights will not be infringed. Contracts can be violated, and they often are. The only thing which guarantees the right may be enjoyed is the positive ACTIONS of people in defence of those rights.
Most people are far too scared to act against government action even when it breeches the contract. This would seem to be according to plan.
"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is
much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with." - THE PRINCE, Nicolo Machiavelli - 1505
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. " - Darth Vader, "Star Wars: Episode V"
Those in power can trample whatever rights they please, and if it can frighten people out of resisting then it has successfully achieved its aim.
If the people are scared of their own government, then they are already oppressed.
Re:Two Words: Chilling Effect (Score:2, Insightful)
Most data mining is not about the known information; it is about the unknown information. The social networks which are built online with people known only through there alias can be rather surprising.
I had the opportunity to find out what was going on in someone's life online and offline. I was able to build the targets offline life from information obtained online by using an account ID which the person had probably forgotten about. That account ID led to the first page which the person made on line which gave personal details and dates of birth. By the time the collection of information was completed the information available gave up the targets; full name, date of birth, home address, property owned and value, phone numbers, spouses full name and family members names and locations. Personal information included likes and dislikes, pets' types and names, and so forth.
The circle of online friends included a couple who were trying to get their brother in-law married.
The target had no clue of the back ground available or the connection of the social network which the target had walked into. The target had no concept of social engineering, or the fact that the target was being used.
The amount of information available publicly and through public/private information sources is amazing and amazingly accurate. It is all a matter of knowing where to look and the interpolation/conformation of the information.
Re:Standard Waste of Our Tax $ (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I do hope they use a little common sense and realize that profiles and other statements on the internet may be wildly inaccurate. And this is one more occassion to remind users that they should post nothing that they wouldn't want just anyone to see.
Re:Standard Waste of Our Tax $ (Score:1, Insightful)
The other thing you neglectged to mention, though, is that the government is only supposed to go through your purchase records after obtaining a court-authorized warrant. They're not supposed to be looking through _everyone's_ purchase records, trying to find suspicious patterns. "Fishing expeditions" have generally been considered by everyone, even the courts, to be violations of reasonable expectations of privacy. The issue isn't necessarily to prevent the government from investigating; it's to prevent it from investigating without reasonable suspicion.
Re:The New COINTELPRO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How do you sleep at night, NSA workers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know a guy who applied to the NSA. I don't know whether he got in, but I've known him since high school. He was a math major in college, played a lot of D&D, Lord of the Five Rings, Warhammer 40k, and World of Warcraft. For all intents and purposes he was completey apolitical. He thought he was a pagan in high school, but decided to be a nihilist by senior year after reading some Nietzsche. Now I think he's converting to Protestantism for his fiancee's family. He's also really good at DDR.
I don't really think he fits the "sociopathic, mean-spirited, fascist-minded" description you have in mind though. He was friendly, loyal, and generous as long as I knew him.
Re:The New COINTELPRO (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't say "expectation of privacy", he said "reasonable assumption that one won't be stalked or spied upon." These are very different things. I don't expect to be able to walk around naked in a bank and scratch myself in front of the customer service rep. I DO, however, expect to not be stalked or tracked in any way other than purely random (e.g. I am not the special focus of any official observations). I DO, also, expect to be able to freely and openly exclaim my opinions about the government and political topics, without incurring special 'treatment' by secret organizations of government hitmen.