4 ms·

>What are you talking about? This - > >Same advice, buy a VPN if you want the services that it provides. >You are allowed to do this at their law enforcement

>What are you talking about? This - > >Same advice, buy a VPN if you want the services that it provides. >You are allowed to do this at their law enforcement's mercy.

deathgrips 6y ago
Oh, I see. Yes. In America you are free to use whatever VPN you pay for, regardless of what country it's hosted in. The NSA won't prohibit it and cannot break it if it's using the right algorithms. If they wanted to intentionally examine your network traffic, that would require a court order. If they wanted to get past your VPN encryption, that would require targeted hacking of a US citizen, which is typically handled by regular law enforcement. The NSA doesn't primarily concern itself with US citizens because investigating them is, in short, a huge pain in the ass. If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd gladly read it.
- srean 6y ago
  How hard was it to get that room at AT&T with or without "court order" that you speak about. Do you consider secret courts to be in scope of this discussion. Then there is this That and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    No court order was necessary because AT&T consented to the NSA presence. Just like how your employer can hand over your corporate laptop to the police without needing a warrant. If you don't like it, consider dealing with another business and encrypting your traffic with a full tunnel VPN. Yes. Secret courts are reasonable due process. Do you have an alternative method that wouldn't release damaging information? Are you interested in talking about surveillance specifically or every talking point of the usual anti-American tirades?
    - srean 6y ago
      So you agree that court orders are not that fancy a deterrent that you made it out to be. You said > If they wanted to intentionally examine your network traffic, that would require a court order. I just gave you an example when that did not matter. > Are you interested in talking about surveillance specifically or every talking point of the usual anti-American tirades? Whenever you are willing to have an honest discussion rather than a blinkered and intentionally misleading cheerleading
      - deathgrips 6y ago
        They don't need a court order to sniff packets and do bulk collection. All that data goes into huge data centers. If they want to query that collected data for an American's information, they get a warrant. No human looks at an American's data before getting a warrant. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with their process, which is highly publicized.
        srean 6y ago
        > No human looks at an American's data before getting a warrant. Prove it.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      > Do you have an alternative method that wouldn't release damaging information? Yes, independent review by a board or committee separate from the defense intelligence complex who will help determine if the information is actually damaging or if it's just some bullshit a midlevel staffer at the Pentagon determined is 'damaging.' As an American, I am deeply disturbed by the complete absence of transparency of these programs to Congress and the American people. And honestly I'm not convinced that the people running these programs have any ability to see the forest for the trees, or if they're not just some D.C. automaton skilled enough at groupthink and not asking questions to get the tippity-top security clearance. Is it a drooling idiot running the program? Dunno. Classified.
      - 6y ago

>What are you talking about? This - > >Same advice, buy a VPN if you want the services that it provides. >You are allowed to do this at their law enforcement's mercy.

deathgrips 6y ago

Oh, I see. Yes. In America you are free to use whatever VPN you pay for, regardless of what country it's hosted in. The NSA won't prohibit it and cannot break it if it's using the right algorithms. If they wanted to intentionally examine your network traffic, that would require a court order. If they wanted to get past your VPN encryption, that would require targeted hacking of a US citizen, which is typically handled by regular law enforcement. The NSA doesn't primarily concern itself with US citizens because investigating them is, in short, a huge pain in the ass. If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd gladly read it.

srean 6y ago
How hard was it to get that room at AT&T with or without "court order" that you speak about. Do you consider secret courts to be in scope of this discussion. Then there is this That and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- deathgrips 6y ago
  No court order was necessary because AT&T consented to the NSA presence. Just like how your employer can hand over your corporate laptop to the police without needing a warrant. If you don't like it, consider dealing with another business and encrypting your traffic with a full tunnel VPN. Yes. Secret courts are reasonable due process. Do you have an alternative method that wouldn't release damaging information? Are you interested in talking about surveillance specifically or every talking point of the usual anti-American tirades?
  - srean 6y ago
    So you agree that court orders are not that fancy a deterrent that you made it out to be. You said > If they wanted to intentionally examine your network traffic, that would require a court order. I just gave you an example when that did not matter. > Are you interested in talking about surveillance specifically or every talking point of the usual anti-American tirades? Whenever you are willing to have an honest discussion rather than a blinkered and intentionally misleading cheerleading
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      They don't need a court order to sniff packets and do bulk collection. All that data goes into huge data centers. If they want to query that collected data for an American's information, they get a warrant. No human looks at an American's data before getting a warrant. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with their process, which is highly publicized.
      - srean 6y ago
        > No human looks at an American's data before getting a warrant. Prove it.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    > Do you have an alternative method that wouldn't release damaging information? Yes, independent review by a board or committee separate from the defense intelligence complex who will help determine if the information is actually damaging or if it's just some bullshit a midlevel staffer at the Pentagon determined is 'damaging.' As an American, I am deeply disturbed by the complete absence of transparency of these programs to Congress and the American people. And honestly I'm not convinced that the people running these programs have any ability to see the forest for the trees, or if they're not just some D.C. automaton skilled enough at groupthink and not asking questions to get the tippity-top security clearance. Is it a drooling idiot running the program? Dunno. Classified.
    - 6y ago