7 ms·

Sources: NSA sucks in data from 50 companies

223 points by cpleppert 13y ago

waterphone 13y ago
This article is two days old, but seems to contain details that contradict later reports from other sources. > A FISA order is required to continue monitoring and analyzing these datasets, although the monitoring can start before an application package is submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That doesn't seem to fit with more recent claims that PRISM is just a streamlined interface for presenting FISA warrants to companies. That might be one component, but there appears to be data collection (just not analysis) pre-warrant.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
More detail here than I've seen elsewhere. In particular, this explanation of what PRISM actually does- "PRISM works well because it is able to handle several different types of data streams using different basic encryption methods, the person said. It is a "front end" system, or software, that allows an NSA analyst to search through the data and pull out items of significance, which are then stored in any number of databases. PRISM works with another NSA program to encrypt and remove from the analysts' screen data that a computer or the analyst deems to be from a U.S. person who is not the subject of the investigation, the person said." It mostly sounds like a typical DB query front end, which accesses DBs built up from individual record requests from the tech companies. But then there's the part about handling different kinds of encryption on the input side, which is puzzling.
- mtgx 13y ago
  Could be why this only costs $20 million a year maintaining and upgrading it. Now we need to find out what's really powering this front-end program.
moultano 13y ago
Cnet reports the exact opposite, according to another anonymous government source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies&#x2F http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...; The legal process, the person said, is akin to how law enforcement request information in criminal investigations: the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  It sounds like they have multiple processes, which makes some sense.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  I don't think this is a conflict. Once the legal order is made and delivered to the company, the NSA receives a real-time feed of that user's data going forward (and all past data) and uses Prism to pull all the disparate data sources together for the analyst to analyze. Surveillance isn't just about receiving your past activity and data that already exists - they want to watch suspects use these systems to communicate in realtime to find out who else they are talking to.
ihsw 13y ago
One has to wonder when the 'combating terrorists' (non-state actors) rhetoric will end, especially when it clearly is at the very bottom of the list of objectives regarding internet surveillance. All of this public-private cooperation seems to indicate that the USG is gearing up for an offensive against other state actors (or it's already in progress). People who self-identify as 'pirates' sometimes refer to the internet as 'the open seas' (similarly representing freedom from oppression and authoritarianism) so it's interesting to see governments establishing 'internet navies' with offensive capabilities given as much attention as defensive capabilities.
- rdl 13y ago
  If so, I want my Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Even if I have to sign it myself.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You want to be authorized by a national government to conduct cyber-warfare activities on their behalf? I think these analogies are becoming a bit strained, U.S. Coast Guard handles law enforcement on the seas, not the Navy.
    - rdl 13y ago
      Well, not strictly cyber-warfare warfare. And military, not law enforcement; at least, military-like activities against non-state actors. (Ron Paul actually proposed this both as the response to 9-11 and the Somali Pirates...) Nothing could go wrong with this :)
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Isn't it alleged that the chinese government does exactly that? I seem to remember stories about quasi-government hacker groups. Of course that may very well have been spin that allowed those doing that reporting to blame the chinese government for the actions of their civilians.
- brown9-2 13y ago
Jabbles 13y ago
I think the best explanation is given here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844576 Prism is probably no more than a mail-merge program that will take your (i.e. NSA agent's) signed court order and convert it into whatever format each company requires. Then it will make the request quickly and easily - Say Google requires a PGP encrypted email, Microsoft wants a HTTPS PUT request, Facebook needs you to upload to SFTP server etc.
- waterphone 13y ago
  This article itself says otherwise, that PRISM is a front-end to the data itself, providing a unified interface for searching through all the data types from the many sources they're coming in from.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Also probably the same in reverse, takes the data back and sends it back in a useful format. The other side though is this -- if you let such requests be quick and easy, you will get more of them. If you want to take a position against such surveillance you should make the process as long and drawn out as you legally can. Insist on hard copies hand-delivered. Insist on manual review by lawyers of hard copies, and the like. But if you make it easy to get information you will get more requests for them.
- count 13y ago
  The NSA doesn't require a signed court order for it's activities though. They're not allowed to spy on Americans (unless that American is communicating with a foreign person) at all. The FBI needs court orders, and is focused on Americans. NSA is part of the Dept. of Defense, and there are lots of laws/rules/etc. that limit what it can do with US citizens.
  - akiselev 13y ago
    The issue is the lack of transparency of the laws/rules/etc. and the review and checks and balances problem. This NSA infrastructure is sufficient for an extremely effective domestic spying network and the only thing stopping them from starting up such a program is the FISA court, where EVERYTHING IS COMPARTMENTALIZED. Do you see a problem with that?
steven2012 13y ago
To me, these are the relevant paragraphs: It is not clear how the NSA interfaces with the companies. It cannot use standard law enforcement transmission channels to do, since most use data protocols that are not compatible with that hardware. Several of the companies mentioned in the Post report deny granting access to the NSA, although it is possible that they are lying, or that the NSA's arrangements with the company are kept so tightly compartmentalized that very few people know about it. Those who do probably have security clearances and are bound by law not to reveal the arrangement. This arrangement allows the U.S. companies to "stay out of the intelligence business," one of the officials said. That is, the government bears the responsibility for determining what's relevant, and the company can plausibly deny that it subjected any particular customer to unlawful government surveillance. Previously, Congressional authors of the FAA said that such a "get out of jail free" card was insisted by corporations after a wave of lawsuits revealed the extent of their cooperation with the government.
brown9-2 13y ago
Marc Ambinder (the author) posted a new article late last night which goes into much more detail: http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of-prism http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-... Each data processing tool, collection platform, mission and source for raw intelligence is given a specific numeric signals activity/address designator, or a SIGAD. The NSA listening post at Osan in Korea has the SIGAD USA-31. Clark Air Force Base is USA-57. PRISM is US-984XN. Each SIGAD is basically a collection site, physical or virtual; the SIGAD alphanumerics are used to indicate the source of intelligence FOR a particular report. The NSA often assigns classified code names to the product of SIGADs. These can be confused with the nicknames or proper names of the collection platforms themselves, which may or may not be classified. What PRISM does is classified; the fact that there is a "PRISM" tool that does something is not. ... So: An analyst sits down at a desk. She uses a tool, like PRISM, to analyze information collected and deposited in a database, like CONTRAOCTAVE. Then she uses another tool, perhaps CPE (Content Preparation Environment), to write a report based on the analysis. That report is stored in ANOTHER database, like MAUI. MAUI is a database for finished NSA intelligence products. Anchory is an intelligence community-wide database for intelligence reports. --------------- And here is the core of it: This is all very complicated, and that is on purpose. But this brief tutorial is important. PRISM is a kick-ass GUI that allows an analyst to look at, collate, monitor, and cross-check different data types provided to the NSA from internet companies located inside the United States. The programs that use PRISM are focused, as the government said yesterday, on foreign intelligence. A lot of foreign intelligence runs through American companies and American servers. ... Now, these accounts are being updated in real-time. So Facebook somehow creates a mirror of the slice of stuff that only the NSA can access. The selected/court-ordered accounts are updated in real-time on both the Facebook server and the mirrored server. PRISM is the tool that puts this all together. Facebook has no idea what the NSA is doing with the data, and the NSA doesn't tell them. So, PRISM is the name of the software application(s) used by an analyst that allows them to pull together all the various pieces of data that they receive from these companies, along with other sources, for their analysis. Which of course, explains why the companies have never heard of this name. There is no reason for them to have. And what the NSA has isn't necessarily "direct access" to the servers - PRISM gives the analyst "direct access" to the data that has already been collected by many different means.
gasull 13y ago
I wish more people used Bitmessage. It makes communications encrypted, secret (with deniability) and it also has built-in spam minimization in the protocol itself. It also includes broadcast messages (like Twitter) and chan boards. It makes email look like an old technology. https://bitmessage.org https://bitmessage.org
- waterphone 13y ago
  It sounds like an exciting new system, and I hope it gains greater popularity, however there are a few reasons some may be hesitant right now: - "Bitmessage should run on any OS though it is only lightly tested on OSX." - "Bitmessage is in need of an independent audit to verify its security."
- betterunix 13y ago
  So it does everything that Email and Usenet can do?
  - gasull 13y ago
    Pretty much. You can't distribute large files like in Usenet, though. Look into I2P + BitTorrent for that, or GnuNet.
codeulike 13y ago
Here's a section that seemed important to me: One official likened the NSA's collection authority to a van full of sealed boxes that are delivered to the agency. A court order, similar to the one revealed by the Guardian, permits the transfer of custody of the "boxes." But the NSA needs something else, a specific purpose or investigation, in order to open a particular box. The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said the standard was "a reasonable, articulatable" suspicion, but did not go into details. Legally, the government can ask companies for some of these records under a provision of the PATRIOT Act called the "business records provision." Initially, it did so without court cognizance. Now, the FISC signs off on every request. Armed with what amounts to a rubber stamp court order, however, the NSA can collect and store trillions of bytes of electromagnetic detritus shaken off by American citizens. In the government's eyes, the data is simply moving from one place to another. It does not become, in the government's eyes, relevant or protected in any way unless and until it is subject to analysis. Analysis requires that second order. So, the govt and NSA distinguish between 'having the data' (receiving a van full of boxes, in the metaphor above) and 'subjecting the data to analysis' (opening a box, in the metaphor). They have a broad order for having the data, but need more specific sign-off to process or analyse the data. This differentiation between 'having data' and 'analysing data' is not one we'd generally make in the IT world - because if they already have the boxes in their possession, how do we know they are getting the right permission before they open the boxes? How is any oversight possible in that situation?
- saraid216 13y ago
  > This differentiation between 'having data' and 'analysing data' is not one we'd generally make in the IT world - because if they already have the boxes in their possession, how do we know they are getting the right permission before they open the boxes? How is any oversight possible in that situation? I don't think it is possible: that's precisely why it's not a distinction made in the IT world: we don't have the apparatus of courts and judges. In the IT world, the primary issue is about security. You have a walled garden and you don't want to let bad people in. Logistics is secondary. Whereas in the IC world, logistics appears to be the harder problem, and keeping the bad people out is already solved to their satisfaction. The challenge is to make sure everyone who needs the data has it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- thomasjoulin 13y ago
  Not only the Middle East but also Asia, Africa and South America.
- oinksoft 13y ago
  You posted this comment, word-for-word, in another thread, three minutes ago .. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5845339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5845339
- mpyne 13y ago
  Certainly the West should repair their relationship with others that have been affected by imperialist policies. But that's not a panacea either. Islamist goals of introducing Sharia are incompatible with Western-style democracy so it may be possible to 'get along' but it won't be as simple as making nice on our side. Of course, we'll only 'get along' right up until the next citizen of a Western democracy draws an image of the Prophet Muhammad.... Likewise there remain nations with aggressive dreams of going above-and-beyond UN convention regarding resource rights, which is obviously incompatible with Western ideals. There remain nations trapped under totalitarian governments strongly opposed to the West. However weak they might be we can't drop our guard completely. So while I agree that the West has some apologies and amends to make I don't agree that would completely solve world peace, and I don't agree that all violence expressed against the West is "our fault".
- nostrademons 13y ago
  I think this will largely fix itself over time. The reason is that the U.S. no longer needs the Middle East for oil. The price of oil has gone and stayed high enough that extraction from oil shale is now economical, and most of the majors are going that route. Which country has the largest oil shale reserves? The U.S, with total oil reserves roughly 3x greater than Saudi Arabia. We simply don't need the Middle East any more - I think that over the next couple years you'll see a complete U.S. pull-out from the region, and we'll leave them to their traditional customs and autocratic rulers. Source: my sister's a petroleum geologist. When she was training in the mid-00s, all the attention was on light, sweet crude from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. Now, virtually everything she does is fracking in Colorado or Wyoming, or work with the Athabasca tar sands.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dcguy 13y ago
Any centralized, aggregated data will attract both good and bad guys. The responsibility of safeguarding data also falls on individuals. We are also a party to the whole episode.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hisabness 13y ago
what are the name of the 50 companies?
- phene 13y ago
  This is what I've been trying to find out. None of these articles seem to have it.
aswanson 13y ago
The NSA is not only instrusive to the point of ridiculous, it's also, as typical of large government organizations, obscenely wasteful of taxpayer resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project
jthol 13y ago
> The officials would not disclose the names of the companies because, they said, doing so would provide U.S. enemies with a list of companies to avoid. I too would like to avoid these companies.

223 points by cpleppert 13y ago

This article is two days old, but seems to contain details that contradict later reports from other sources. > A FISA order is required to continue monitoring and analyzing these datasets, although the monitoring can start before an application package is submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That doesn't seem to fit with more recent claims that PRISM is just a streamlined interface for presenting FISA warrants to companies. That might be one component, but there appears to be data collection (just not analysis) pre-warrant.

waterlesscloud 13y ago

More detail here than I've seen elsewhere. In particular, this explanation of what PRISM actually does- "PRISM works well because it is able to handle several different types of data streams using different basic encryption methods, the person said. It is a "front end" system, or software, that allows an NSA analyst to search through the data and pull out items of significance, which are then stored in any number of databases. PRISM works with another NSA program to encrypt and remove from the analysts' screen data that a computer or the analyst deems to be from a U.S. person who is not the subject of the investigation, the person said." It mostly sounds like a typical DB query front end, which accesses DBs built up from individual record requests from the tech companies. But then there's the part about handling different kinds of encryption on the input side, which is puzzling.

mtgx 13y ago
Could be why this only costs $20 million a year maintaining and upgrading it. Now we need to find out what's really powering this front-end program.

moultano 13y ago

Cnet reports the exact opposite, according to another anonymous government source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies&#x2F http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...; The legal process, the person said, is akin to how law enforcement request information in criminal investigations: the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism.

einhverfr 13y ago
It sounds like they have multiple processes, which makes some sense.
brown9-2 13y ago
I don't think this is a conflict. Once the legal order is made and delivered to the company, the NSA receives a real-time feed of that user's data going forward (and all past data) and uses Prism to pull all the disparate data sources together for the analyst to analyze. Surveillance isn't just about receiving your past activity and data that already exists - they want to watch suspects use these systems to communicate in realtime to find out who else they are talking to.

ihsw 13y ago

One has to wonder when the 'combating terrorists' (non-state actors) rhetoric will end, especially when it clearly is at the very bottom of the list of objectives regarding internet surveillance. All of this public-private cooperation seems to indicate that the USG is gearing up for an offensive against other state actors (or it's already in progress). People who self-identify as 'pirates' sometimes refer to the internet as 'the open seas' (similarly representing freedom from oppression and authoritarianism) so it's interesting to see governments establishing 'internet navies' with offensive capabilities given as much attention as defensive capabilities.

rdl 13y ago
If so, I want my Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Even if I have to sign it myself.
- mpyne 13y ago
  You want to be authorized by a national government to conduct cyber-warfare activities on their behalf? I think these analogies are becoming a bit strained, U.S. Coast Guard handles law enforcement on the seas, not the Navy.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Well, not strictly cyber-warfare warfare. And military, not law enforcement; at least, military-like activities against non-state actors. (Ron Paul actually proposed this both as the response to 9-11 and the Somali Pirates...) Nothing could go wrong with this :)
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Isn't it alleged that the chinese government does exactly that? I seem to remember stories about quasi-government hacker groups. Of course that may very well have been spin that allowed those doing that reporting to blame the chinese government for the actions of their civilians.
brown9-2 13y ago

Jabbles 13y ago

I think the best explanation is given here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844576 Prism is probably no more than a mail-merge program that will take your (i.e. NSA agent's) signed court order and convert it into whatever format each company requires. Then it will make the request quickly and easily - Say Google requires a PGP encrypted email, Microsoft wants a HTTPS PUT request, Facebook needs you to upload to SFTP server etc.

waterphone 13y ago
This article itself says otherwise, that PRISM is a front-end to the data itself, providing a unified interface for searching through all the data types from the many sources they're coming in from.
einhverfr 13y ago
Also probably the same in reverse, takes the data back and sends it back in a useful format. The other side though is this -- if you let such requests be quick and easy, you will get more of them. If you want to take a position against such surveillance you should make the process as long and drawn out as you legally can. Insist on hard copies hand-delivered. Insist on manual review by lawyers of hard copies, and the like. But if you make it easy to get information you will get more requests for them.
count 13y ago
The NSA doesn't require a signed court order for it's activities though. They're not allowed to spy on Americans (unless that American is communicating with a foreign person) at all. The FBI needs court orders, and is focused on Americans. NSA is part of the Dept. of Defense, and there are lots of laws/rules/etc. that limit what it can do with US citizens.
- akiselev 13y ago
  The issue is the lack of transparency of the laws/rules/etc. and the review and checks and balances problem. This NSA infrastructure is sufficient for an extremely effective domestic spying network and the only thing stopping them from starting up such a program is the FISA court, where EVERYTHING IS COMPARTMENTALIZED. Do you see a problem with that?

steven2012 13y ago

To me, these are the relevant paragraphs: It is not clear how the NSA interfaces with the companies. It cannot use standard law enforcement transmission channels to do, since most use data protocols that are not compatible with that hardware. Several of the companies mentioned in the Post report deny granting access to the NSA, although it is possible that they are lying, or that the NSA's arrangements with the company are kept so tightly compartmentalized that very few people know about it. Those who do probably have security clearances and are bound by law not to reveal the arrangement. This arrangement allows the U.S. companies to "stay out of the intelligence business," one of the officials said. That is, the government bears the responsibility for determining what's relevant, and the company can plausibly deny that it subjected any particular customer to unlawful government surveillance. Previously, Congressional authors of the FAA said that such a "get out of jail free" card was insisted by corporations after a wave of lawsuits revealed the extent of their cooperation with the government.

brown9-2 13y ago

Marc Ambinder (the author) posted a new article late last night which goes into much more detail: http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of-prism http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-... Each data processing tool, collection platform, mission and source for raw intelligence is given a specific numeric signals activity/address designator, or a SIGAD. The NSA listening post at Osan in Korea has the SIGAD USA-31. Clark Air Force Base is USA-57. PRISM is US-984XN. Each SIGAD is basically a collection site, physical or virtual; the SIGAD alphanumerics are used to indicate the source of intelligence FOR a particular report. The NSA often assigns classified code names to the product of SIGADs. These can be confused with the nicknames or proper names of the collection platforms themselves, which may or may not be classified. What PRISM does is classified; the fact that there is a "PRISM" tool that does something is not. ... So: An analyst sits down at a desk. She uses a tool, like PRISM, to analyze information collected and deposited in a database, like CONTRAOCTAVE. Then she uses another tool, perhaps CPE (Content Preparation Environment), to write a report based on the analysis. That report is stored in ANOTHER database, like MAUI. MAUI is a database for finished NSA intelligence products. Anchory is an intelligence community-wide database for intelligence reports. --------------- And here is the core of it: This is all very complicated, and that is on purpose. But this brief tutorial is important. PRISM is a kick-ass GUI that allows an analyst to look at, collate, monitor, and cross-check different data types provided to the NSA from internet companies located inside the United States. The programs that use PRISM are focused, as the government said yesterday, on foreign intelligence. A lot of foreign intelligence runs through American companies and American servers. ... Now, these accounts are being updated in real-time. So Facebook somehow creates a mirror of the slice of stuff that only the NSA can access. The selected/court-ordered accounts are updated in real-time on both the Facebook server and the mirrored server. PRISM is the tool that puts this all together. Facebook has no idea what the NSA is doing with the data, and the NSA doesn't tell them. So, PRISM is the name of the software application(s) used by an analyst that allows them to pull together all the various pieces of data that they receive from these companies, along with other sources, for their analysis. Which of course, explains why the companies have never heard of this name. There is no reason for them to have. And what the NSA has isn't necessarily "direct access" to the servers - PRISM gives the analyst "direct access" to the data that has already been collected by many different means.

gasull 13y ago

I wish more people used Bitmessage. It makes communications encrypted, secret (with deniability) and it also has built-in spam minimization in the protocol itself. It also includes broadcast messages (like Twitter) and chan boards. It makes email look like an old technology. https://bitmessage.org https://bitmessage.org

waterphone 13y ago
It sounds like an exciting new system, and I hope it gains greater popularity, however there are a few reasons some may be hesitant right now: - "Bitmessage should run on any OS though it is only lightly tested on OSX." - "Bitmessage is in need of an independent audit to verify its security."
betterunix 13y ago
So it does everything that Email and Usenet can do?
- gasull 13y ago
  Pretty much. You can't distribute large files like in Usenet, though. Look into I2P + BitTorrent for that, or GnuNet.

codeulike 13y ago

Here's a section that seemed important to me: One official likened the NSA's collection authority to a van full of sealed boxes that are delivered to the agency. A court order, similar to the one revealed by the Guardian, permits the transfer of custody of the "boxes." But the NSA needs something else, a specific purpose or investigation, in order to open a particular box. The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said the standard was "a reasonable, articulatable" suspicion, but did not go into details. Legally, the government can ask companies for some of these records under a provision of the PATRIOT Act called the "business records provision." Initially, it did so without court cognizance. Now, the FISC signs off on every request. Armed with what amounts to a rubber stamp court order, however, the NSA can collect and store trillions of bytes of electromagnetic detritus shaken off by American citizens. In the government's eyes, the data is simply moving from one place to another. It does not become, in the government's eyes, relevant or protected in any way unless and until it is subject to analysis. Analysis requires that second order. So, the govt and NSA distinguish between 'having the data' (receiving a van full of boxes, in the metaphor above) and 'subjecting the data to analysis' (opening a box, in the metaphor). They have a broad order for having the data, but need more specific sign-off to process or analyse the data. This differentiation between 'having data' and 'analysing data' is not one we'd generally make in the IT world - because if they already have the boxes in their possession, how do we know they are getting the right permission before they open the boxes? How is any oversight possible in that situation?

saraid216 13y ago
> This differentiation between 'having data' and 'analysing data' is not one we'd generally make in the IT world - because if they already have the boxes in their possession, how do we know they are getting the right permission before they open the boxes? How is any oversight possible in that situation? I don't think it is possible: that's precisely why it's not a distinction made in the IT world: we don't have the apparatus of courts and judges. In the IT world, the primary issue is about security. You have a walled garden and you don't want to let bad people in. Logistics is secondary. Whereas in the IC world, logistics appears to be the harder problem, and keeping the bad people out is already solved to their satisfaction. The challenge is to make sure everyone who needs the data has it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

thomasjoulin 13y ago
Not only the Middle East but also Asia, Africa and South America.
oinksoft 13y ago
You posted this comment, word-for-word, in another thread, three minutes ago .. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5845339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5845339
mpyne 13y ago
Certainly the West should repair their relationship with others that have been affected by imperialist policies. But that's not a panacea either. Islamist goals of introducing Sharia are incompatible with Western-style democracy so it may be possible to 'get along' but it won't be as simple as making nice on our side. Of course, we'll only 'get along' right up until the next citizen of a Western democracy draws an image of the Prophet Muhammad.... Likewise there remain nations with aggressive dreams of going above-and-beyond UN convention regarding resource rights, which is obviously incompatible with Western ideals. There remain nations trapped under totalitarian governments strongly opposed to the West. However weak they might be we can't drop our guard completely. So while I agree that the West has some apologies and amends to make I don't agree that would completely solve world peace, and I don't agree that all violence expressed against the West is "our fault".
nostrademons 13y ago
I think this will largely fix itself over time. The reason is that the U.S. no longer needs the Middle East for oil. The price of oil has gone and stayed high enough that extraction from oil shale is now economical, and most of the majors are going that route. Which country has the largest oil shale reserves? The U.S, with total oil reserves roughly 3x greater than Saudi Arabia. We simply don't need the Middle East any more - I think that over the next couple years you'll see a complete U.S. pull-out from the region, and we'll leave them to their traditional customs and autocratic rulers. Source: my sister's a petroleum geologist. When she was training in the mid-00s, all the attention was on light, sweet crude from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. Now, virtually everything she does is fracking in Colorado or Wyoming, or work with the Athabasca tar sands.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dcguy 13y ago

Any centralized, aggregated data will attract both good and bad guys. The responsibility of safeguarding data also falls on individuals. We are also a party to the whole episode.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hisabness 13y ago

what are the name of the 50 companies?

phene 13y ago
This is what I've been trying to find out. None of these articles seem to have it.

aswanson 13y ago

The NSA is not only instrusive to the point of ridiculous, it's also, as typical of large government organizations, obscenely wasteful of taxpayer resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project

jthol 13y ago

> The officials would not disclose the names of the companies because, they said, doing so would provide U.S. enemies with a list of companies to avoid. I too would like to avoid these companies.