4 ms·

> There is no evidence at all that this stuff has been used domestically. I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. Anyway, why would

> There is no evidence at all that this stuff has been used domestically. I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government?

John23832 10y ago
>I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. These leaks attempt to piggy back off of the snowden media frenzy > Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? It is the duty of each government to look after the well being of its people with the resources it has, up to and including spying. Spying has gone on since the dawn of civilization. My opinion extends to foreign governments attempting to spy on the US. Does it help the human race as a whole? No, but that's a much bigger philosophical debate.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  The activities of CIA are not and have not ever been good for we "people" of USA. Sometimes if one squints hard enough, it seems that perhaps they have been intended to be for our good, but usually that's not even the case.
  - John23832 10y ago
    You opinions about the CIA's actions are just that. I have negative opinions about the CIA's actions in many instances as well. Their possession of these types of tools however, clearly falls within their official stated goal, the standards we should judge them by.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      It's interesting that 50-USC-46 doesn't seem to actually "officially state" any goal for the agency. That seems too glaring an oversight to be unintentional, so your appeal to such standards seems unfounded. I suggest that by any reasonable standard, CIA should have been shuttered decades ago. Even the tools seen here are indicted elsewhere in this thread by a knowledgeable person as "clownshoes".
      - John23832 10y ago
        I don't have time to read the entire law regarding the CIA, so I'll take your word on that, but from their website: The function of the Central Intelligence Agency is to assist the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in carrying out the responsibilities outlined above. To accomplish its mission, the CIA engages in research, development, and deployment of high-leverage technology for intelligence purposes. As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis on topics of concern and also works closely with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community to ensure that the intelligence consumer—whether Washington policymaker or battlefield commander—receives the best intelligence possible. Though I will agree with you that this is just a statement on their website, not law. >That seems too glaring an oversight to be unintentional, so your appeal to such standards seems unfounded. I suggest that by any reasonable standard, CIA should have been shuttered decades ago. Even the tools seen here are indicted elsewhere in this thread by a knowledgeable person as "clownshoes". Speculation and opinions are just that, speculations and opinions.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Speculation and opinions are just that, speculations and opinions. Hilarious! We're discussing CIA. The whole point is that they don't submit to the scrutiny of their employers. "You don't know what we're doing, so we could be doing the right thing!"
buttsnax 10y ago
Um... Need I remind you, that everything from Vault 7, was leaked on flash drives, (vault 7 shit doesn't require infrastructure to deploy or use as most nsa implementations do), and given to ex spooks, contractors, ex contractors, private contractors, even those with no intention of working for the government. Basically a deal sweetener, for those with similar status or ideals. Has been showing up in pieces for sale in various places online. I suggest looking into where Assange got his copy of the flash drive from. Pretty interesting. Also, 'the hammer' was purchased by blixtech, who's owner (Edra Blixseth) used it to hack her husband's lawyer during divorce proceedings, upon finding out, he confronted the engineer behind it, who had previously filed 18 formal whistleblower reports with the White House and was denied all 18 times. He has recorded full video testimony and a dozen affidavit's, and received full immunity, finally, two weeks ago. When the story first broke, no judge would pursue it. Eventually Joe arpaio tried to, and Fox recorded extensive reports, which have not yet aired. The engineer provided 800 million recorded phone calls, as many bank records, and emails. The system was just some sort of brute force which broke ssl. This has been mentioned in vault 7, briefly, but will be expanded on in a release very soon. Fox was provided with 10 million sample users, so they could take local callers who were willing to hear their conversations on air to prove this. There is an hour of recordings with Tim Blixseth, Joe Arpaio, and a few others, going over many more details. Definitely worth looking into, however it shouldn't be much longer until it is revealed in full. Pretty insane. Look into it, will blow your mind.
- buttsnax 10y ago
  I'll add that this isn't normal collection. This was off the books. As in, he was routinely given 5,000$ cash to take to Lockheed facility to give to a contact who would 'sneak' him into use a faster machine.(1 billion attempts per minute.) As well as an sending stuff to the oval offices direct fax line. Everyone believes Trump is saving this as the big reveal, an answer to Obama wiretapping, and as the reason Obama got up, said forget the whole 'build a team to fight trump in DC' thing, got up left his family, and flew to Tahiti (non extradition) for the foreseeable future.(went from month to months to foreseeable future.)
  - kbenson 10y ago
kbenson 10y ago
> Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? As a targeted investigation of an individual (which is what this would be used for)? No. > Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Because I literally cannot envision a world where the incentives mean state actors are not going to be doing this. You can legislate it away, or make moralistic announcements, but unless you actually remove the incentive, it will happen. If it's happening, I want my government to have at least the average level of proficiency. The difference with domestic spying is that based on our laws, ethos, type of government and the fact that the people doing the spying are also citizens means that there are some powerful counter-incentives along with the incentives to spy domestically. That at least gives it a chance to be curtailed in some ways. Foreign spying really doesn't have the same counter-incentives.
frogpelt 10y ago
> Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? This logic does not work. Would you be okay getting shot if you broke into someone else's house? No. But other folks have a right to protect their houses. The US has a right and constitutional duty to protect itself and it's citizens. You can argue about the best way to do that but it's a non-starter to say that we can only do the things that we would want other countries to do us. Using that logic, we would get rid of all of our weapons.

John23832 10y ago

>I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. These leaks attempt to piggy back off of the snowden media frenzy > Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? It is the duty of each government to look after the well being of its people with the resources it has, up to and including spying. Spying has gone on since the dawn of civilization. My opinion extends to foreign governments attempting to spy on the US. Does it help the human race as a whole? No, but that's a much bigger philosophical debate.

jessaustin 10y ago
The activities of CIA are not and have not ever been good for we "people" of USA. Sometimes if one squints hard enough, it seems that perhaps they have been intended to be for our good, but usually that's not even the case.
- John23832 10y ago
  You opinions about the CIA's actions are just that. I have negative opinions about the CIA's actions in many instances as well. Their possession of these types of tools however, clearly falls within their official stated goal, the standards we should judge them by.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    It's interesting that 50-USC-46 doesn't seem to actually "officially state" any goal for the agency. That seems too glaring an oversight to be unintentional, so your appeal to such standards seems unfounded. I suggest that by any reasonable standard, CIA should have been shuttered decades ago. Even the tools seen here are indicted elsewhere in this thread by a knowledgeable person as "clownshoes".
    - John23832 10y ago
      I don't have time to read the entire law regarding the CIA, so I'll take your word on that, but from their website: The function of the Central Intelligence Agency is to assist the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in carrying out the responsibilities outlined above. To accomplish its mission, the CIA engages in research, development, and deployment of high-leverage technology for intelligence purposes. As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis on topics of concern and also works closely with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community to ensure that the intelligence consumer—whether Washington policymaker or battlefield commander—receives the best intelligence possible. Though I will agree with you that this is just a statement on their website, not law. >That seems too glaring an oversight to be unintentional, so your appeal to such standards seems unfounded. I suggest that by any reasonable standard, CIA should have been shuttered decades ago. Even the tools seen here are indicted elsewhere in this thread by a knowledgeable person as "clownshoes". Speculation and opinions are just that, speculations and opinions.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        Speculation and opinions are just that, speculations and opinions. Hilarious! We're discussing CIA. The whole point is that they don't submit to the scrutiny of their employers. "You don't know what we're doing, so we could be doing the right thing!"

buttsnax 10y ago

Um... Need I remind you, that everything from Vault 7, was leaked on flash drives, (vault 7 shit doesn't require infrastructure to deploy or use as most nsa implementations do), and given to ex spooks, contractors, ex contractors, private contractors, even those with no intention of working for the government. Basically a deal sweetener, for those with similar status or ideals. Has been showing up in pieces for sale in various places online. I suggest looking into where Assange got his copy of the flash drive from. Pretty interesting. Also, 'the hammer' was purchased by blixtech, who's owner (Edra Blixseth) used it to hack her husband's lawyer during divorce proceedings, upon finding out, he confronted the engineer behind it, who had previously filed 18 formal whistleblower reports with the White House and was denied all 18 times. He has recorded full video testimony and a dozen affidavit's, and received full immunity, finally, two weeks ago. When the story first broke, no judge would pursue it. Eventually Joe arpaio tried to, and Fox recorded extensive reports, which have not yet aired. The engineer provided 800 million recorded phone calls, as many bank records, and emails. The system was just some sort of brute force which broke ssl. This has been mentioned in vault 7, briefly, but will be expanded on in a release very soon. Fox was provided with 10 million sample users, so they could take local callers who were willing to hear their conversations on air to prove this. There is an hour of recordings with Tim Blixseth, Joe Arpaio, and a few others, going over many more details. Definitely worth looking into, however it shouldn't be much longer until it is revealed in full. Pretty insane. Look into it, will blow your mind.

buttsnax 10y ago
I'll add that this isn't normal collection. This was off the books. As in, he was routinely given 5,000$ cash to take to Lockheed facility to give to a contact who would 'sneak' him into use a faster machine.(1 billion attempts per minute.) As well as an sending stuff to the oval offices direct fax line. Everyone believes Trump is saving this as the big reveal, an answer to Obama wiretapping, and as the reason Obama got up, said forget the whole 'build a team to fight trump in DC' thing, got up left his family, and flew to Tahiti (non extradition) for the foreseeable future.(went from month to months to foreseeable future.)
- kbenson 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? As a targeted investigation of an individual (which is what this would be used for)? No. > Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Because I literally cannot envision a world where the incentives mean state actors are not going to be doing this. You can legislate it away, or make moralistic announcements, but unless you actually remove the incentive, it will happen. If it's happening, I want my government to have at least the average level of proficiency. The difference with domestic spying is that based on our laws, ethos, type of government and the fact that the people doing the spying are also citizens means that there are some powerful counter-incentives along with the incentives to spy domestically. That at least gives it a chance to be curtailed in some ways. Foreign spying really doesn't have the same counter-incentives.

frogpelt 10y ago

> Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? This logic does not work. Would you be okay getting shot if you broke into someone else's house? No. But other folks have a right to protect their houses. The US has a right and constitutional duty to protect itself and it's citizens. You can argue about the best way to do that but it's a non-starter to say that we can only do the things that we would want other countries to do us. Using that logic, we would get rid of all of our weapons.