5 ms·

I'm going to ignore your warping of my words and focus on the interesting bit here: again, Google. You don't remember when news broke in 2014 that the NSA was

by kakarot 10y ago

I'm going to ignore your warping of my words and focus on the interesting bit here: again, Google. You don't remember when news broke in 2014 that the NSA was snooping on Google's Gmail traffic that was flying around unencrypted within their own network? Google, rightfully embarrassed, subsequently enabled internal end-to-end encryption after the news broke. Here it is straight from the horse's mouth: https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/03/staying-at-forefront-of-email-security.html https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/03/staying-at-forefront-of... So... yeah. Not baseless at all. Meanwhile you have yet to provide a single citation throughout all of this.

lern_too_spel 10y ago
I cited Snowden's own documents. According to Snowden's documents, the NSA used email envelope metadata where at least one side was a foreigner to build a connection graph, similar to pen register metadata collection. It didn't look at the contents, which it would have to do in order to be wiretapping. That program (STELLARWIND, which operated behind the Internet companies' backs, not PRISM, which operated via court orders on specific accounts) ended before Snowden even leaked it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/ns... Let's recap. You claimed that PRISM is mass wiretapping. It isn't. You claimed that the NSA is mass wiretapping Verizon and AT&T. It isn't. Let's stick to your original claims and see them through to completion. Do you admit you were wrong about PRISM and the telcos?
- kakarot 10y ago
  Citing Snowden's documents would involve actually giving me a link. I did not say PRISM was mass wiretapping but it is indeed part of the surveillance suite of NSA programs. I did not adequately explain myself in my original post, but I cleared things up afterwards and you are ignoring that completely. You have consistently been framing my arguments in a specific way so that you can attack them in a specific way. I also don't understand why you think that the NSA was not mass wiretapping both of those telco's major junctions. It's a known thing. It's not some fringe conspiracy theory. The Fed has been tapping phone lines since the very beginning. Not all of them sure, but certainly in a dragnet fashion. This has continued with the explosive growth of information networks into the 21st century. I provided links. I do not need to provide any more on that topic. I've honestly never encountered someone before who so earnestly believes as you do that these programs are not widespread or dangerous or grossly overstepping their bounds. It's like denying climate change or something.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    > Citing Snowden's documents would involve actually giving me a link. I gave you a link to a slide diagramming PRISM and a link to the document describing the email envelope program that had shut down. > I did not say PRISM was mass wiretapping but it is indeed part of the surveillance suite of NSA programs. I understand you now concede that PRISM isn't the nefarious new-datacenter-requiring mass data collection you originally claimed it was, that the actual surveillance itself is carried out by the FBI, and that PRISM just enables the NSA to search the FBI's data collected on specific foreigners with a court order. > I also don't understand why you think that the NSA was not mass wiretapping both of those telco's major junctions. It's a known thing. If it's a "known thing," where is the evidence? None of your links claim that the NSA is mass wiretapping the telcos' major junctions. Mass wiretapping Americans would violate the Fourth Amendment (the ACLU successfully sued over phone metadata collection, and collecting voice content would be a much bigger issue), so if you have any evidence at all, present it or be prepared to be labeled a conspiracy theorist.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      Here you are again, twisting my words! Amazing. No, I did not say anything like that about PRISM. I said exactly what I said-- that I was not clear enough in my original post, but I clarified myself immediately after in response to you. I wrote that original post in a hurry and did not take the time to read over it like I usually do. And I've already elaborated on how the NSA uses other agencies and businesses as tools for its surveillance, to avoid direct ownership of the information that they can request at any time. Again, STOP twisting my words to serve your narrative. I gave you links, but I will humor you with another: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying > . . . recently published FISA court order demanding Verizon turn over all customer phone records including who is talking to whom, when and for how long—to the NSA . . . Oh look! FISA being used to demand all of verizon's phone records! All of them! And what are one of the programs that FISA feeds into? Oh yeah, that's right. PRISM. If you do not consider this to be a dragnet surveillance order, you are just lying to yourself. So there is yet another verifiable source highlighting the scope of PRISM. here is the relevant court case: https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles-v-nsa https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles... Do I need to physically take you to Titanpointe to see it for yourself? Here is a link explaining what that is, I already posted it once but clearly you have not been following through and reading these links. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-york-hidden-in-plain-sight/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-...

by kakarot 10y ago

lern_too_spel 10y ago

I cited Snowden's own documents. According to Snowden's documents, the NSA used email envelope metadata where at least one side was a foreigner to build a connection graph, similar to pen register metadata collection. It didn't look at the contents, which it would have to do in order to be wiretapping. That program (STELLARWIND, which operated behind the Internet companies' backs, not PRISM, which operated via court orders on specific accounts) ended before Snowden even leaked it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/ns... Let's recap. You claimed that PRISM is mass wiretapping. It isn't. You claimed that the NSA is mass wiretapping Verizon and AT&T. It isn't. Let's stick to your original claims and see them through to completion. Do you admit you were wrong about PRISM and the telcos?

kakarot 10y ago
Citing Snowden's documents would involve actually giving me a link. I did not say PRISM was mass wiretapping but it is indeed part of the surveillance suite of NSA programs. I did not adequately explain myself in my original post, but I cleared things up afterwards and you are ignoring that completely. You have consistently been framing my arguments in a specific way so that you can attack them in a specific way. I also don't understand why you think that the NSA was not mass wiretapping both of those telco's major junctions. It's a known thing. It's not some fringe conspiracy theory. The Fed has been tapping phone lines since the very beginning. Not all of them sure, but certainly in a dragnet fashion. This has continued with the explosive growth of information networks into the 21st century. I provided links. I do not need to provide any more on that topic. I've honestly never encountered someone before who so earnestly believes as you do that these programs are not widespread or dangerous or grossly overstepping their bounds. It's like denying climate change or something.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  > Citing Snowden's documents would involve actually giving me a link. I gave you a link to a slide diagramming PRISM and a link to the document describing the email envelope program that had shut down. > I did not say PRISM was mass wiretapping but it is indeed part of the surveillance suite of NSA programs. I understand you now concede that PRISM isn't the nefarious new-datacenter-requiring mass data collection you originally claimed it was, that the actual surveillance itself is carried out by the FBI, and that PRISM just enables the NSA to search the FBI's data collected on specific foreigners with a court order. > I also don't understand why you think that the NSA was not mass wiretapping both of those telco's major junctions. It's a known thing. If it's a "known thing," where is the evidence? None of your links claim that the NSA is mass wiretapping the telcos' major junctions. Mass wiretapping Americans would violate the Fourth Amendment (the ACLU successfully sued over phone metadata collection, and collecting voice content would be a much bigger issue), so if you have any evidence at all, present it or be prepared to be labeled a conspiracy theorist.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    Here you are again, twisting my words! Amazing. No, I did not say anything like that about PRISM. I said exactly what I said-- that I was not clear enough in my original post, but I clarified myself immediately after in response to you. I wrote that original post in a hurry and did not take the time to read over it like I usually do. And I've already elaborated on how the NSA uses other agencies and businesses as tools for its surveillance, to avoid direct ownership of the information that they can request at any time. Again, STOP twisting my words to serve your narrative. I gave you links, but I will humor you with another: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying > . . . recently published FISA court order demanding Verizon turn over all customer phone records including who is talking to whom, when and for how long—to the NSA . . . Oh look! FISA being used to demand all of verizon's phone records! All of them! And what are one of the programs that FISA feeds into? Oh yeah, that's right. PRISM. If you do not consider this to be a dragnet surveillance order, you are just lying to yourself. So there is yet another verifiable source highlighting the scope of PRISM. here is the relevant court case: https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles-v-nsa https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles... Do I need to physically take you to Titanpointe to see it for yourself? Here is a link explaining what that is, I already posted it once but clearly you have not been following through and reading these links. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-york-hidden-in-plain-sight/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-...