5 ms·

2014? this is really old news, and there's no smoking gun in here. it's not like they are looking through your camera or listening to your mic, it's just "who i

2014? this is really old news, and there's no smoking gun in here. it's not like they are looking through your camera or listening to your mic, it's just "who is using this app" type stuff, and the NSA denies they target people who they are not seeking for other reasons i'm not saying "believe the NSA" or the Five Eyes, but you already know how you think about that

greenchair 1y ago
[flagged]
froggertoaster 1y ago
They call them "slippery slopes" for a reason. Why were they collecting this data at all, and why is it constitutional?
- vrosas 1y ago
  My dude you can buy troves of data from Grindr, or really any popular “free” app. Advertisers eat this stuff up.
- owlninja 1y ago
  That document seems like a useful tool to get elected and then throw in the trash when you are in power.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
> old news Vogon detected "There's no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now."
alabastervlog 1y ago
They deny they target people they aren’t seeking for other reasons (uh, duh? This basically doesn’t say anything at all) but don’t deny mass collection, nor using your data to try to target others (or you, if “other reasons” come up!) or to build a general spying-on-everyone surveillance system. But sure, I do believe them that they don’t bother to look at it unless they want to. Like… yes, that’s how looking works.
- simoncion 1y ago
  They absolutely did deny mass collection (among other things). The most charitable interpretation of the claims would be that what NSA calls "collection", every other English-speaking human would call "analysis" (or -maybe- "post-collection preprocessing"). This horseshit was reported in many places at the time, but here's the first vaguely-reputable place I could find talking about this sort of thing today [0]: > Take, for example, the definition of the term “collection.” What qualifies as intelligence collection is critical to the scope of intelligence activity because it determines when intelligence gathering begins. Although it never provides its own definition, EO 12333 repeatedly refers to collection as the beginning of the intelligence gathering cycle. The agencies themselves elaborate on EO 12333’s general guidance by defining collection in their internal procedures. As we chart in greater detail in our article, the Defense Department’s and the NSA’s definitions of collection vary significantly, even though the NSA is a subordinate agency of the Pentagon. > The Defense Department defines collection as intelligence gathering at a much earlier point than the NSA’s. Under DoD 5240.01, the department’s current manual, “information is collected when it is received by a Defense Intelligence Component,” regardless of how that information is “obtained or acquired.” By contrast, the NSA’s current version of USSID 18 states that collection “means [the] intentional tasking or SELECTION of identified nonpublic communications for subsequent processing aimed at reporting or retention as a file record.” As a result, collection for the Defense Department’s purposes appears to involve no processing or action; information is collected as soon as it is received. For the NSA, however, collection begins only once the information has been “selected” and put to further use. > ...Under the NSA’s attorney general guidelines, for example, vast amounts of intelligence could be gathered without technically being collected. This means that, on paper, none of the guidelines’ subsequent protections for or limitations on the use of that intelligence apply when the information is first received. In theory, the NSA’s guidelines might permit the agency to gather significant amounts of unprocessed intelligence and then store it indefinitely. [0] <https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-does-collection-mean-discretion-and-confusion-intelligence-community https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-does-collection-me...>
__MatrixMan__ 1y ago
"who is using this app?" sounds like an innocent enough question until that person dies a moment later for reasons that surely had nothing to do with the app.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
What possible good is it to know who is using Angry Birds for an intelligence agency? Your explanation makes zero sense. The idea that they’d use it for spying is the only logical explanation.

greenchair 1y ago

[flagged]

froggertoaster 1y ago

They call them "slippery slopes" for a reason. Why were they collecting this data at all, and why is it constitutional?

vrosas 1y ago
My dude you can buy troves of data from Grindr, or really any popular “free” app. Advertisers eat this stuff up.
owlninja 1y ago
That document seems like a useful tool to get elected and then throw in the trash when you are in power.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

> old news Vogon detected "There's no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now."

alabastervlog 1y ago

They deny they target people they aren’t seeking for other reasons (uh, duh? This basically doesn’t say anything at all) but don’t deny mass collection, nor using your data to try to target others (or you, if “other reasons” come up!) or to build a general spying-on-everyone surveillance system. But sure, I do believe them that they don’t bother to look at it unless they want to. Like… yes, that’s how looking works.

simoncion 1y ago
They absolutely did deny mass collection (among other things). The most charitable interpretation of the claims would be that what NSA calls "collection", every other English-speaking human would call "analysis" (or -maybe- "post-collection preprocessing"). This horseshit was reported in many places at the time, but here's the first vaguely-reputable place I could find talking about this sort of thing today [0]: > Take, for example, the definition of the term “collection.” What qualifies as intelligence collection is critical to the scope of intelligence activity because it determines when intelligence gathering begins. Although it never provides its own definition, EO 12333 repeatedly refers to collection as the beginning of the intelligence gathering cycle. The agencies themselves elaborate on EO 12333’s general guidance by defining collection in their internal procedures. As we chart in greater detail in our article, the Defense Department’s and the NSA’s definitions of collection vary significantly, even though the NSA is a subordinate agency of the Pentagon. > The Defense Department defines collection as intelligence gathering at a much earlier point than the NSA’s. Under DoD 5240.01, the department’s current manual, “information is collected when it is received by a Defense Intelligence Component,” regardless of how that information is “obtained or acquired.” By contrast, the NSA’s current version of USSID 18 states that collection “means [the] intentional tasking or SELECTION of identified nonpublic communications for subsequent processing aimed at reporting or retention as a file record.” As a result, collection for the Defense Department’s purposes appears to involve no processing or action; information is collected as soon as it is received. For the NSA, however, collection begins only once the information has been “selected” and put to further use. > ...Under the NSA’s attorney general guidelines, for example, vast amounts of intelligence could be gathered without technically being collected. This means that, on paper, none of the guidelines’ subsequent protections for or limitations on the use of that intelligence apply when the information is first received. In theory, the NSA’s guidelines might permit the agency to gather significant amounts of unprocessed intelligence and then store it indefinitely. [0] <https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-does-collection-mean-discretion-and-confusion-intelligence-community https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-does-collection-me...>

__MatrixMan__ 1y ago

"who is using this app?" sounds like an innocent enough question until that person dies a moment later for reasons that surely had nothing to do with the app.

kjkjadksj 1y ago

What possible good is it to know who is using Angry Birds for an intelligence agency? Your explanation makes zero sense. The idea that they’d use it for spying is the only logical explanation.