Tin foil hat time, or storm in an e-tea-cup?
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nsa ]The Graun has a rather good page with most of the details linked. [/url]
The long tailed dove flies over the grey squirrel in the springtime.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
whatever a government claims, however benevolent they are today, history tells us never to assume that it will always be that way.
I probably should care.... but I really don't.
The Graun' got the scoop too!
404 on that link. STW GETS HACKED BY GCHQ !!!
Who are we worrying about ? Me ? I'm not worried. Am I surprised ? Hardly.
Does this set a precedent for the future? Of course. Is that right ? No.
Can we change that ? Doubtful.
The future is here, and it is not bright. Your life is now their life. If you don't like it, don't go online.
I predicted about two years ago that the next tech movement, will not be people turning on, but turning off.
As more online life becomes subject to more scrutiny, prepare for peope for readjust to life "off the grid"
Mark my words, it will happen.
Hardly news is it - its essentially the same as ECHELON, and we've known about that for years
* Steeplebush AK47 Semtex Penguin Disney Uranium
Edit - that was about 1996, I don't think he'd be trying the balloon thing more recently 😉
I had a proper tinfoil hat moment this morning.
Apple and Microsoft (and Google/Android?) require push updates for their phones to go through their servers. Which according to the Guardian, Prism has access to.
So they can track all push notifications?
So imagine if someone suggested that push notifications, and even iPhones and Smartphones are a plant by the US government to track us all.
How this will play out and change things will be fascinating. I'm really really not one for conspiracy theories or anything like that. But I do wear a Casio F91W as that apparently labels me as a terrorist. Meh.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W
29 years after Orwell's prediction...
if you have a read of the user t's & c's of your iphone user agreement states that you give permission to allow apple/google the right to record/capture "background" audio even when the device is not being used.
It's like politicians taking bribes - we all know they do it, the only surprise is when they get caught. All those golfballs on the moors in Yorkshire aren't there for decoration, such things have been going on for decades. I'm also not sure that the government having your data is any worse than an immoral corporation having it.
So what to do?
As I don't use he interweb this doesn't affect me.
Oh wait a minute.
Can they turn on my iPad cam remotely?
OH WAIT A MINUTE.
Seiko Kinetic here, so clearly non-terrorist.
Well, if I was a terrorist bent on blowing up everyone who disagreed with me there´s a short list of Dos and Don´ts.
The Don´ts can be summed up as:
Don´t communicate via mobile phones, public phones or internet...ever.
Avoid CCTV and airports.
I shouldn´t need to take my shoes off to further the illusion that Americans can sleep safe at night.
Precisely - the only terrorists this catches are stupid ones. The way Woolwich is being used to promote more surveillance is particularly distasteful.
Not surprised in the slightest about the
revelation, they've been doing it for years and you'd have to be incredibly trusting/gullible to disregard all our modern technology regarding mobile phones/internet/digital communication as being personally secure and used or given to us purely for our benefit.Prism
If it bothers you then use some form of key encryption when online but i imagine that is not as secure as what they make it out be either, consider your digital existence whether that be phone communication/email communication/web browsing/sat nav in your car etc as a commodity to be traded/abused/cracked/recorded and held against you if you are so found to be in contravention of so called Laws, whether or not you agree with those Laws may be an entirely different matter.
I'm sure the Prism leaks are small fry compared to what is actually going on, we're lied to on a daily basis (dons' tin foil hat and hides under the stairs).
Spies discovered spying in spy shocker!
[b]NSA Surveillance News: Everything You Need to Know[/b]
http://mashable.com/2013/06/07/nsa-prism-faq/
[b]What's the legal basis for this program?[/b]
This program legally stems from section 215 of Patriot Act, a controversial portion of the law. The section expands the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law that was passed in 1978 but has been significantly expanded after 9/11.Section 215 authorizes the U.S. government to request businesses to turn over "the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)," a long as it needs the information for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
This provision allows the government to investigate both American citizens and non-American citizens. The only difference is that American citizens can't be investigated solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment. The NSA shouldn't investigate an American just based on what books he or she reads, for example.
Authorities don't need to show probable cause. They don't even need to show grounds that the person targeted is a criminal — in other words, there's no need for a warrant, which is normally required in search and seizure cases. All the government needs to do is convince the secretive Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Court that that the information sought is relevant to a terrorism investigation.
Section 215 also comes with a gag clause. Businesses who receive the order are legally prevented form disclosing its existence to anybody — including the subject of the order. That's why so few cases have been disclosed.
According to a Congressional Research Service report from 2012, Section 215 "both enlarged the scope of materials that may be sought and lowered the standard for a court to issue an order compelling their production."
[b]What is the NSA Internet companies wiretapping program?[/b]
We have fewer details about this program, which is still shrouded in secrecy. The program, called PRISM, allows the federal government to secretly collect information on foreigner users of popular Internet services provided by Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple and at least five more companies, according to both The Guardian and the Washington Post, who obtained sections of a classified 41-page PowerPoint presentation of the program.Under this program, the NSA allegedly has real-time access to e-mail, chat services, videos, photos, stored data, and file transfers from the collaborating services. In other words, the NSA has permission to eavesdrop and conduct blanket surveillance on foreigners' online communications.
Pretty much all the companies named in the secret presentation have either denied their participation in the program, or even denied knowing that the program existed at all. But President Obama, Clapper and legislators have effectively confirmed its existence.
We don't know yet about the technicalities of the program. In other words, we don't know if the NSA has compelled these companies to install a backdoor in their servers (something that the companies denied), or if they access an API (a theory also denied by some companies). What the companies said, basically, is that they don't allow any unfettered open-ended access, but that they just respond to lawful requests. What that precisely entails, in this case, is anyone's guess.
Why is this a big deal?
"They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type," an intelligence officer, who leaked the secret documents to the Washington Post, told the paper.If that's true and the reports turn out to be accurate, this program is just like having somebody look over your shoulder while you're on your computer, all the time.
What's the legal basis for this program?
As we explained here, PRISM stems from Title VII, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. It was created by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.Section 702 allows the NSA to acquire information on foreign targets. The provision is pretty clear on this point: it's "foreign-intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States." If the program intercepts information pertaining to American citizens, that interception can only be "incidental."
Even with such precise language, it's easy to see how the program could be abused. American data can easily get trapped in this surveillance dragnet if U.S. citizens communicate with somebody outside of the country.
"They came for the palmists, but I wasn’t a palmist so I did nothing
They came for the bungee jumpers, but I wasn’t a bungee jumper so I did nothing
They came for the players’ agents, but I wasn’t a players’ agent so I did nothing
They came for the Charles Manson fans, but I wasn’t a Charles Manson fan so I did nothing
They came for the reflexologists, but I wasn’t a reflexologist so I did nothing
They came for the camp TV chefs, but I wasn’t a camp TV chef so I did nothing
They came for the RoMos, I laughed
They came for the martial arts enthusiasts, but I wasn’t a martial arts enthusiast so I did nothing
They came for Eamonn Holmes and I think I’m right in saying I applauded
They came for the fire-eaters, but I wasn’t a fire-eater so I did nothing
They came for Dani Behr, I said she’s over there, behind the wardrobe.
Sometimes it’s best to turn a blind eye."
Blah blah blah bomb, blah blah blah Houses of Parliament, blah blah blah Tuesday..... Etc etc.
Along the lines of delusional paranoia to consider we are all being tracked and eavesdropped on, I can't even imagine the processing power that would be required. Of course there is and has been this sort of nonsense going on by those who fear the masses for centuries. That technology now enables them to do it en masse is par for the course. But to want to take note of each of us? Individually? Really?
Why anyone would want to get involved in the detail of my life, apart from me, is beyond me. I'm sure they all have much more important things to do. And of course, if I have nothing to hide, then why do I care if someone i dont know wants to screen my mostly spam email inbox and browsing history?
If, on the other hand, I do have something to hide.... Well, I'd be most put out thinking that someone, something, somewhere might be on to me...
But as technology develops the ability to sift data in various ways increases... The govt seems obsessed with your lifestyle, your eating and drinking habits ect... They will use the information because they can, and the technology gives them the means to do so.
Ironic that the purported reason for the Cold War, the thousands of nuclear weapons, and the threat of ruining the world was the protection of liberty against this sort of communist style surveillance.
Even more ironic that Yvette Cooper, the 'Labour' shadow home secretary, yes "Labour' the party of the ID card, the data warehouse, and the multiple police state acts, is asking questions of the Coalition on this issue.
As i said before the issue is not just about what will this government do with the data, but what would a subsequent government do with the data.
Could the UK ever be in the situation where it was ruled in a manner similar to Franco, Pinochet, Stalin, Hitler, etc, etc, etc. Consider the McCarthy trials in the US before saying it could never happen in a western democracy such as the UK. People are easily led to do what in hindsight is clearly insane.
Where does the line get drawn, an islamic extremist, a hunt sab, anti badger cull campaigner, anti shale gas ,anti wind-mill, anti-new housing estate.
Data mining makes it easy to determine much of a persons life from fragments, and while stereotype's tend to be right they are not perfect, you can easily find your self labeled by your actions inappropriately.
I''ll post something more extended later as I'm on a phone, but for those interested this set of slides provides useful background:
Taping of phones and computers has ben going on for years, have a look at www.secretbases.co.uk , and then search Capenhurst tower, which was basicly a tower built to resemble a farm silo but which intersepted the microwave transmisions of the two towers at Prestatyn north wales and Spy hill at Delamere forest, the microvaves where being sent to Ireland, most of the site has now been cleared but the original houses that where converted to offices are stil there at capenhurst.
Interesting reading here...
Along the lines of delusional paranoia to consider we are all being tracked and eavesdropped on, I can't even imagine the processing power that would be required. Of course there is and has been this sort of nonsense going on by those who fear the masses for centuries. That technology now enables them to do it en masse is par for the course. But to want to take note of each of us? Individually? Really?
You obviously don't know about the huge data processing center that the NSA have been building, then?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
Just off Beef Hollow Road, less than a mile from brethren headquarters, thousands of hard-hatted construction workers in sweat-soaked T-shirts are laying the groundwork for the newcomers’ own temple and archive, a massive complex so large that it necessitated expanding the town’s boundaries. Once built, it will be more than five times the size of the US Capitol.
Inside, the facility will consist of four 25,000-square-foot halls filled with servers, complete with raised floor space for cables and storage. In addition, there will be more than 900,000 square feet for technical support and administration. The entire site will be self-sustaining, with fuel tanks large enough to power the backup generators for three days in an emergency, water storage with the capability of pumping 1.7 million gallons of liquid per day, as well as a sewage system and massive air-conditioning system to keep all those servers cool. Electricity will come from the center’s own substation built by Rocky Mountain Power to satisfy the 65-megawatt power demand. Such a mammoth amount of energy comes with a mammoth price tag—about $40 million a year, according to one estimate.
There you go, slackalice, is that enough processing power for you?
And don't forget that it is the government that is (in theory) our collective property, not we theirs.
If you're not worried about govts acting like a paranoid corporate entity and regarding everyone as a potential suspect until proven otherwise the you've not understood the issue yet.
So when you read that, and it says it has on-site generators fuelled for three days, that can apparently take over from its own specially built power station, you don't think it's a load of emotive bullshit?
The thing is there is no secret conspiracy. it's just an openly corrupt system.
This is the possible storage capacity of the NSA's center:
Given the facility’s scale and the fact that a terabyte of data can now be stored on a flash drive the size of a man’s pinky, the potential amount of information that could be housed in Bluffdale is truly staggering. But so is the exponential growth in the amount of intelligence data being produced every day by the eavesdropping sensors of the NSA and other intelligence agencies. As a result of this “expanding array of theater airborne and other sensor networks,” as a 2007 Department of Defense report puts it, the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (1024 bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes—so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)It needs that capacity because, according to a recent report by Cisco, global Internet traffic will quadruple from 2010 to 2015, reaching 966 exabytes per year. (A million exabytes equal a yottabyte.) In terms of scale, Eric Schmidt, Google’s former CEO, once estimated that the total of all human knowledge created from the dawn of man to 2003 totaled 5 exabytes. And the data flow shows no sign of slowing. In 2011 more than 2 billion of the world’s 6.9 billion people were connected to the Internet. By 2015, market research firm IDC estimates, there will be 2.7 billion users. Thus, the NSA’s need for a 1-million-square-foot data storehouse. Should the agency ever fill the Utah center with a yottabyte of information, it would be equal to about 500 quintillion (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text.
The man speaks (the man who stuck it to the man that is)...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
Brave chap
Said it before and ill say it again
Why do you think most mobile phone cameras have no shutter across the lens?
Why do you think most mobile phone cameras have no shutter across the lens?
Um, because there's no space to fit one? The (possible) new Nokia EON. Phone reportedly has one, but it's got a damned great bulge on the back.
And what possible relevance has the presence, or not, of a shutter on a phone camera have?
I've had phones with shutters across the lens. Great place to store a small quantity of fluff, dust and grit and have it jiggle about on the lens. The photos looked like instagram before instagram had even been invented.
😆I've had phones with shutters across the lens. Great place to store a small quantity of fluff. The photos looked like instagram before instagram had even been invented.
I've stuck a small square of tape over my camera lens.
Storm in an e-cup - the government have been tracking people of interest for years and as long as you have nothing to hide then I dont see the issue here, yeah, the government could start on the road to becoming a dictatorship in the future, but I would be seriously surprised how far that got before the people stopped it. I don't see this as a start of that. We have various bodies who work to protect the subjects suchas the ICo and others who I am sure have been involved in overseeing what is happening here.
What I wouldbe more concerned about is the use of such knowledge / information by the private sector as you never know what you are agreeing to in variouscontracts we sign up for. I've heard of a project which aims to provide data on peoples daily movements and physical locations (historic and realtime) and apparently all permissible under your mobile contract. Now thats scary and of more concern to me!
And what happens when private corporations become one and the same? When there is an incentive to data mine, ie; payment for each 'crime' detected, when the law has been redefined to criminalise that which was previously legal?
Brave chap
Given what happened to Bradley Manning he is indeed a brave chap.
No good deed goes unpunished. Transparnecy is a one-way process; they can see what they want about you, but you can't see what is done in your name...
I'm trying to care about this but really struggling to. The 'revelations' about prism are just confirmation of what most sensible people have assumed for years. I'm not a tinfoil hat kind of guy, I just assumed internet is wide open. Given that I am no longer an international terrorist, it doesn't really bother me!
if you have a read of the user t's & c's of your iphone user agreement states that you give permission to allow apple/google the right to record/capture "background" audio even when the device is not being used.
This is spooky though. I wonder if this means spooks can access background audio from somebodies phone, i.e. plant a listening device without actually needing to plant a listening device. Clever stuff...
The 'revelations' about prism are just confirmation of what most sensible people have assumed for years.
Thread closed for most of us...
Yes go on. Don't care. Keep grazing.
Yes go on. Don't care. Keep grazing.
grazing? Is that spy code for something. I dunt no wot u meen!
Baaaaa!
There you go, slackalice, is that enough processing power for you?
not even close...
Good luck to anyone who fancies the job of monitoring the endless, relentless, outpourings of digital drivel that emit from most people nowadays.
Do you think that they'll have to click on every Facebook link that says 'like this if you want to stop one-legged children with cancer, starving to death while being eaten by hamsters'?
Only it's not people, but a form of E-life.
Good luck to them if they want to make sense of some of the stuff posted on here.
I have an image of GCHQ servers just imploding one day when trying to process another 'what tyres' thread.
hat the companies said, basically, is that they don't allow any unfettered open-ended access, but that they just respond to lawful requests. What that precisely entails, in this case, is anyone's guess.
So why is this any different to what they can do now in terms of breaking down your door and going through your stuff? That requires a warrant now obtained in court, so why doesn't this?
If you care about democracy, this stuff matters. Democracy is founded on the premise of liberty, equality, freedom and autonomy. Granted, there are bigger rights then privacy (equality and freedom), but privacy is a founding principle of modern democracy because it is required for autonomy. As a citizen the idea is that you are not part of an amorphous mass but you are an individual with a right to privacy.
Privacy then is not negative (“having something to hide”) but positive and relates to themes of dignity and the management of boundaries regarding what one wishes to share, reveal or allow access to. It also allows for people to be different and have unusual ideas and practices free from unwanted interference from the state and other actors. Beyond concerns about unintended consequences (data leaks, hacks, use by regimes) there is the more general principle that what is yours by legal right (European) has been taken and employed without consent.
Not to forget the way that the UK and US seem to have circumvented their respective laws governing this type of operation by effectively taking in each other's washing. When govts regard themselves as being above the law we really are deep in it...
The thing is, I doubt they have the time, budget, interest or processing power to do anything useful with my data.
I post photos on FB
I post idle chat and rubbish on STW
I buy stuff
I read the news
I download music
I talk to my nieces of FaceTime
I watch stuff on i-player
I laugh at silly videos on you tube
I realy dont care if they can access that. I always assumed they could anyway!
So I take it you'd have no objection to random covert searches of your home while you were out?
Just to add (for those who care), in terms of what you can do: 1) Write to your MP telling of your unhappiness (an email will do); 2) support civil rights groups who promote privacy (e.g, The Open Rights Group); 3) use alternatives to Californian tech-companies.
The latter point is a key one as it is the lack of diversity in the market place that has allowed this to happen. I was talking with a senior figure who in the 2000s used to advise Microsoft on privacy and while he had an inkling something like this was going-on, he did not realise the scale of it and the precise means by which it works. Again, his answer is that a more diverse marketplace is required. Despite governments' protestations otherwise, monopolies and tiny markets work well for them.
I'll desist after this quote:
"The potential for misuse of this power [new technology] is terrifyingly high, to say nothing of the dangers introduced by human error, data-driven false positives and simple curiosity. Perhaps a fully integrated information system, with all manner of data inputs, software that can interpret and predict behavior and humans at the controls is simply too powerful for anyone to handle responsibly. Moreover, once built, such a system will never be dismantled. Even if a dire security situation were to improve, what government would willingly give up such a powerful law-enforcement tool? And the next government in charge might not exhibit the same caution or responsibility with its information as the preceding one. Such totally integrated information systems are in their infancy now, and to be sure they are hampered by various challenges (like consistent data-gathering) that impose limits on their effectiveness. But these platforms will improve, and there is an air of inevitability around their proliferation in the future. The only remedies for potential digital tyranny are to strengthen legal institutions and to encourage civil society to remain active and wise to potential abuses of this power."
The authors of this passage? Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen (p. 176) in their book "The New Digital Age"!
We should assume the internet's terms of service are that all use will be monitored.
Seems like a good idea to me, I'd rather all my Internet and telecoms traffic was monitored if that means there is a lower risk of being hit by a terrosit attack or indeed if (actual and wannabe) could not access material online without being monitored
Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?
And I don't mean governments or security forces vaguely saying that it does, While they invariably request/demand yet more powers. I mean them actually coming out and proving that monitoring peoples communications like this has ever foiled a terrorist attack. Or anything else they claim it prevents, for that matter.
I mean in the real world too. As opposed to in the ongoing James Bond film playing in their paranoid, over-fertile imaginations?
We should assume the internet's terms of service are that all use will be monitored.Seems like a good idea to me, I'd rather all my Internet and telecoms traffic was monitored if that means there is a lower risk of being hit by a terrosit attack or indeed if (actual and wannabe) could not access material online without being monitored
Disappointing - while a defence technology, Paul Baran and Vint Cerf thought of IP/TCP as a more anonymous technology with high hopes for the future for a "neutral network".
On terrorism this is more thorny, but let me turn this into a question - at what do you (or anyone else) draw the line on the balance of security versus civil liberties? [i]Should privacy exist at all?[/i] Should we be monitored 24/7 by every means possible? If not, at what point does it become unacceptable? If we can work out a baseline, this will provide ground for discussion.
So I take it you'd have no objection to random covert searches of your home while you were out?
I would object as I regard my home as private, I do not regard my internet traffic as private.
Right - devil's advocate mode, for the purposes of debate:
So I take it you'd have no objection to random covert searches of your home while you were out?
If they let themselves in with a key, and put everything exactly back where it was leaving no trace, would that make it simply an academic question?
(I've got another point but let's do this one first)
...and another thing!
I do not expect that there is some super spy sat in a bunker somewhere reading my Facebook posts. The data is mined, electronically filtered and proabably binned when they realise I do not intend to blow anybody up. I do not feel like my privacy is violated when this is all carried out by a piece of software.
Saxabar, would not 24/7 monitoring of everything we did not represent a presumption of guilt? Our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence, so surely monitoring should only be used when there is a suspicion of guilt from other sources, rather than the de facto standard.
Another well written comment - [url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/08/what_about_a_us_tech_boycott/ ]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/08/what_about_a_us_tech_boycott/[/url]
If they let themselves in with a key, and put everything exactly back where it was leaving no trace, would that make it simply an academic question?
If instead of putting it back where it [u]was[/u] they actually put stuff back where it [u]belongs[/u] then they would be very welcome!
A politician that argues this is all fine and unfortunately necessary has no credibility at all - make it [u]legal[/u] first if it is so innocuous.
@Willard - agreed! (And as you intone, there are already legal grounds for accessing SNS and other information).
I realy dont care if they can access that. I always assumed they could anyway!
For me it is like them reading my mail
None of it is really private tbh but none of it is the states business either and they should leave me alone. It is snooping and i have th eright to a private life. FFS if my partner or mother or mate did this I would be cross never mind the state
Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?
I doubt it as the terrorists have the sense to encrypt - think they got Bin ladden by snooping though
Amusingly you can use certain products - the US govt are complicit in this [ dunds and created]as it helps dissidents abroad to stay online anonymously and not be prosecuted by oppressive regimes like in say Syria. Libya, Iraq etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_hidden_service#Hidden_services
oh the ironing
It has a diverse base of financial support;[10] the U.S. State Department, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the National Science Foundation are major contributors.[12] As of 2012,[b] 80% of the Tor Project's $2M annual budget comes from the United States government,[/b] with the Swedish government and other organizations providing the rest,[13] including NGOs and thousands of individual sponsors.[14]
In March 2011 The Tor Project was awarded the Free Software Foundation's 2010 Award for Projects of Social Benefit on the following grounds: [b]"Using free software, Tor has enabled roughly 36 million people around the world to experience freedom of access and expression on the Internet while keeping them in control of their privacy and anonymity. Its network has proved pivotal in dissident movements in both Iran and more recently Egypt.[/b]"[15]
think they got Bin ladden by snooping though
I thought the Dr. that was treating him grassed him up. Which I think is still how most crimes and acts of terrorism are solved and the perpetrators captured. There is always someone willing to run off their mouth. CSI and super inteligent CIA analysts are for the big screen.
We do need much stricter laws to protect our privacy, but INO it needs to start with the data private companies are allowed to access and store about us. Especially companies like Experian etc.
think they got Bin ladden by snooping though
A whole world of other do do's, but there other sources that point to torture obtained intelligence (e.g. http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781472402554).
Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?
And I don't mean governments or security forces vaguely saying that it does, While they invariably request/demand yet more powers. I mean them actually coming out and proving that monitoring peoples communications like this has ever foiled a terrorist attack. Or anything else they claim it prevents, for that matter.
AFAIAA, no, hence the ever increasing demands for more powers to snoop, and bigger facilities for doing the snooping.
And it's not just the NSA, the CIA and FBI have their own systems, as do the US military, and no-one will share the info they obtain, which is why things get missed. Wired magazine do good features on all this stuff.
oh the ironing
Moreover. If TOR is (still) almost wholly funded by the US government, how likely(*) is it that the NSA is already plugged into it and thus everyone who has a reason to be concerned about privacy is nicely flagged up for them.
TOR started out as a military project, but it seems much more likely to me that it'd continue to be funded and its use encouraged if they knew they could crack their own encryption. It's not something the US take lightly; time was, you'd to sign export declarations before you could download certain versions of Internet Explorer.
(* - funny)
[URL= http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s204/_Obelix_/qjbtwIz.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s204/_Obelix_/qjbtwIz.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
[URL= http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s204/_Obelix_/ex5xzI6.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s204/_Obelix_/ex5xzI6.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Proper LOL at Obelix's first one 🙂
Cougar: Tor is open source, no?
[b]binners[/b]
Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?
"They" (the security forces) aren't going to tell you are they ? FWIW I think the answer is yes definitely.
Cougar: Tor is open source, no?
Sure.
But I'd be shocked if the world's various governments and security forces thought "oh well, we'll just ignore people using TOR. Oh and here, have some money."
I'm not suggesting TOR is inherently corrupt; rather that the NSA can probably break it if they have to.
"anthrax"
"jihad"
"dirty bomb"
Now the nsa are gonna come and **** you up. 😀
Does this mean they read the email I sent to the kiddies club about the picnic?
I've been working today, so a little late back with my response re amount of processing power... It sounds like there is a lot of it.
As someone mentioned earlier, I pity the poor saps who are tasked with trawling through all that information.
However, as has been going on since mankind got themselves a social hierarchy, those in power are heavily outnumbered by those who are not. In order to keep themselves in power and the standard to which they wish to keep, they instil fear in the populous. For many centuries, they were able to use judgemental deity/s to help them. Nowadays, they use terrorism and the threat of, which is far more effective at keeping the majority who operate their lives in a "what if" mentality, in a state of fear and gratitude for the powers that be for keeping everyone of us 'safe'.
As I and a few others have posted earlier, if you have nothing to hide, then where really is the bother? What if?! What if?! What if?!!!
As for human rights! Best not get me started on that one. I will say though that the one and possibly only basic human right we are denied, is the one of whether we wish to live or die. Whether we actually have anymore rights is a hotly contested one and whether that is keeping this on or off topic, I'm not sure.
Squirrels.
Does this mean they read the email I sent to the kiddies club about the picnic?
Squirrels.
They want your nuts.
As I and a few others have posted earlier, if you have nothing to hide, then where really is the bother?
Yes our government is benign and I exist to simply provide them with whatever data they request - perhaps i should have a GPS chip installed [after sending a DNA sample]and send them my diary of what I do after all i have nothing to hide.
Privacy is a not about being secret per se it is that fact that what I do has got **** all to do with them and they dont have the right to snoop and what information i share with you , the wife, the internet etc is MY choice
As for human rights! Best not get me started on that one. I will say though that the one and possibly only basic human right we are denied, is the one of whether we wish to live or die
perhaps the state could put you in prison to protect you from harm and maintain your right to life
You got it JY 🙂