omnibus PRISM/NSA/free Edward Snowden/encryption tutorial thread

I am ten times as worried that Amazon pretty much knows before I do what I want to buy next week, because I am powerless in the face of the Amazon Prime juggernaut.

Amazon just notified me of a sale on cargo shorts.

no one is necessarily shocked but cool story

this is not about "shock," it's about confirmation of a suspicion

you can operate based on the assumption that the gov't is tracking data but that puts you about a half-step away from people who operate based on the assumption that the gov't is using satellites to control the weather

people are tracking their own movements via their phones. they are doing all the work for the govt. never before have people left such huge easily trackable/traceable data trails.

i don't understand the second part of that post but i think i agree with the first part? (xp n/a)

no one is really shocked that the government would want free access to all sorts of data about people's lives, it's clearly in their self-interest to have it. the question is whether it should be legal

xp scott, thanks

somebody remind me who the DNC chair is, I don't follow furniture.

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald
Go read 2001/2002 debate over the Patriot Act - NOBODY thought it enabled mass, indiscriminate, bulk collection of all Americans' records.

i mean it must be kind of an exciting time to be a security/govt/cia type. so much info! they love info.

well tbf nobody cared about their fb accounts being monitored in 2001 because fb didn't exist in 2001

so it's the platform that counts, not the principle

ok, use of the word shock may have overstated things.

however, this is not a new expose either :

i mean ...

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

when it comes to how we store personal data online the platform does count. nobody could have conceived of the arguments we're having today because back in 2001 the idea that 1 billion people would put all of their personal info on one website wasn't really conceivable.

it's almost like there was a slope that became slippery

when it comes to how we store personal data online the platform does count. nobody could have conceived of the arguments we're having today because back in 2001 the idea that 1 billion people would put all of their personal info on one website wasn't really conceivable.

except of course for all of the order history info in Amazon and Travelocity

fuck being a spook in 2013, the real action's in being a historian in 2200

ya this had been happening w/ consumer data for much longer, but I think people don't take that as seriously as their fb photos etc? or maybe just cause stuff like acxiom so far under the radar that many people just only have a vague idea.

also amazon / the internet back then was still not used as widely as it is today. fewer people had amazon purchasing histories to worry about.

Plus they only had seven books for sale, and two of them were Who Moved My Cheese? and What Color Is My Parachute?

Grateful to Amazon for offering pristine copies of used Eno albums in '98.

The idea that no one could have known that all of this information would be out there when there were concerted technical initiatives to make it easier to put all of this info out there, not only through third-party websites but also through ISP recruitment (remember the age of the ever-present AOL installation CD) is pretty asinine. Data repositories for successful, long-lasting endeavors don't shrink.

I don't think the rise of social networks and the fact that people would voluntarily be putting up as much personal info as they do today was seen as inevitable by the public at large - those were the 'nobody knows you're a dog' years

I mean if it's not your job or your hobby you don't spend that much time thinking about what technology is going to look like in 12 years and adjusting your political beliefs accordingly

http://www.aclu.org/stop-government-plan-mine-our-privacy-total-information-awareness-system

just as long as people keep sharing yummy rum raisin cake recipes i'm happy. kudos to marge p. in sheboygan! :)

I don't think anyone here is "shocked." What bothers me are the billions spent on private contractors on data accumulation and the fetishizing of secrecy. But with a million people boasting top secret clearance you gotta keep the secrecy industry afloat, you know?

from 2993

Imean 2003

lols at marge p in sheboygan

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying on this server.

THANKS ACLU

I don't think anyone here is "shocked." What bothers me are the billions spent on private contractors on data accumulation and the fetishizing of secrecy. But with a million people boasting top secret clearance you gotta keep the secrecy industry afloat, you know?

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:07 PM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

why, it's almost like.. the military!

also http://gawker.com/the-vain-media-cynics-of-the-nsa-story-512575457

Al Franken.

but also...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy-access-20130611,0,171405.story

Analyst overstated claims on NSA leaks, experts say

Amid questions over how Edward Snowden gained access to critical data, experts cite the technical limits and far-reaching oversight within the agency.

i don't think the US should be engaged in warrantless (meaning=without a warrant from a non-secret court) "data mining" to begin with, so there's not much that "officials" and "experts" can do to convince me all is OK

shhh but Sully will explain it to you.

"oh, that can't be true. when we warrantlessly tap your phone, that can only be initiated by a supervisor." thanks bro.

Any NSA analyst "at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere," Snowden told the Guardian. "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal email."

Robert Deitz, a former top lawyer at the NSA and CIA, called the claim a "complete and utter" falsehood.

"First of all it's illegal," he said. "There is enormous oversight. They have keystroke auditing. There are, from time to time, cases in which some analyst is [angry] at his ex-wife and looks at the wrong thing and he is caught and fired," he said.

NSA analysts who have the authority to query databases of metadata such as phone records — or Internet content, such as emails, videos or chat logs — are subject to stringent internal supervision and also the external oversight of the foreign surveillance court, former NSA officials said.

"It's actually very difficult to do your job," said a former senior NSA operator, who also declined be quoted by name because of the sensitive nature of the case. "There are all these checks that don't allow you to move agilely enough."

[angry]

"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal email."

hmmmmmmm

"It's actually very difficult to do your job," said a former senior NSA operator, who also declined be quoted by name because she was about to leave for a four-week vacation in Bali, paid for thanks to a $250,000 salary.

[angry]

tried to make this my dn but no brackets allowed :(

lol @ the idea of a senior NSA operator making $250K

$150K, sure; lol @ $250K tho

Snowman's salary somewhere in the middle though!

the lowball on his salary (from "booze allen") is $122k; highball (from him i guess?) is $200k; i don't think he was a "senior analyst"

sorry, "operator"

(i think we got "disconnected")

if he left a $200k job for this, he is a true american hero but if he only left a $122k job, he is scum

and he didn't spend a dime on eyeglass frames

lol at sullivan praising obama for, among other things, 'no more completely unchecked executive power.'