5 ms·

This whole thing is so bizarre to me. The NSA has been doing this sort of thing since at least the early 90s. Who knows, probably earlier. What exactly did peop

This whole thing is so bizarre to me. The NSA has been doing this sort of thing since at least the early 90s. Who knows, probably earlier. What exactly did people think the NSA was doing? The only difference is that, before digital cell service, it was more difficult to monitor phones conversations because the infrastructure simply didn't support it. Everyone's all riled up over a few PowerPoint slides (which may ver well be fake). I don't get. No mainstream company or consumer has ever given two shits about encryption. You send data in plaintext and are surprised that the NSA might be reading/logging it? The public overwhelmingly supported the PATRIOT Act back when it was passed. Black box rooms in telecom facilities were exposed what, 10 years ago? No one gave a shit. Why do people seem to suddenly care? You can't say it's because, "We have more information," because we really don't. People suddenly care about privacy? I do not understand what those who are outraged thought the NSA did. Honestly, how can you be so ignorant?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
microb 13y ago
What I'm about to say is absolutely nuts, but it could be that this is something the NSA leaked intentionally and the media is running with it for reasons we are not aware of. Despite twitter and the like, the mainstream media is still largely in control of what occupies the "news" and therefore what the otherwise apathetic public is concerned about.
- cdvonstinkpot 13y ago
  Ok, I'll bite. What sort of hypothetical could warrant such an action, intentionally leaking this story? Do they want to reassure us of their best efforts in protecting us from terrorism? I can't imagine a scenario existing where the tables might eventually turn & those who were once appalled & angry that the NSA was so into everything change their minds and become reassured that the gov't is actually on their game & has the means to get some outrageous terrorist threat we couldn't have imagined under control again because of their broad wiretapping capabilities.
  - microb 13y ago
    Security reassurance is something I hadn't thought of, but I think you are right that this leak goes way too far for that to work. I don't believe this either...but if I wore a tinfoil-hat I would point out that: 1) The NSA "leak" is not really news because it was reported in 2006[1]. 2) "Bad" publicity from it is the beginning of Obama's 2nd term downfall which is happening too soon in his 2nd term for us to be angry enough to elect a Libertarian 2016. It'll be an opportune time to usher in an all-talk small government Republican in 2016 to maintain Red State vs. Blue State illusion. Even if the Repub doesn't win, it'll look like the election was a close ideological fight, which is all that matters in the eyes of the public. Of course, all 2016 candidates will continue to support the NSA oversight regardless of what they say during their campaign, so it won't matter whether red or blue gets the oval office. Like I said... science fiction. [1]http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.h...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  It's reaching considerably, but the only two reasons that could be true is if the truth is considerably worse (or will be) and the NSA is getting the world used to the idea of pervasive surveillance inch-by-inch (unlikely), or it's not as bad as it's being made out to be and they're framing reality in terms of a more dire alternative. An example of the latter would be that infamous daughter's letter home to parents. [1] The reality is probably that the unauthorized leak is just that, an unauthorized leak and a lot of people internally are pissed as hell. The surveillance apparatus in the US and other places is probably more developed than we know about and probably getting more sophisticated. [1] http://www.snopes.com/college/pranks/letter.asp http://www.snopes.com/college/pranks/letter.asp
- paganel 13y ago
  > What I'm about to say is absolutely nuts, but it could be that this is something the NSA leaked intentionally I had a similar thought this morning, not necessarily about the NSA leaking this on purpose, but about how they could turn this into their own advantage. You can already see that Obama has gone on record saying that "we cannot fight against terror without giving away some of our freedoms" (or something very similar to this, I'm too lazy to search for the exact quote), a statement which he couldn't have made before this scandal. What's really more disconcerting are all those comments (reasonably highly voted) coming from what seem to be genuine American citizens saying something very similar to what Obama is saying: "We can't fight terrorism if we don't let the Government go through our stuff". A little bit OT, I'm surprised nobody has yet made a parallel between present-days United States and the end times of the Roman Republic. You just have to replace today's "terrorists" with the "Barbarians/Germans" of that time and Julius Caesar with today's over-reaching Government. The bad news is that for all of Brutus's and Cicero's efforts Caesar was followed by future emperor Augustus and the end of the Roman Republic.
  - microb 13y ago
    We're definitely not immune to collapse. Nuclear weapons just make things a collapse more sticky. Society needs a scapegoat to channel it's inherent violence (ie the Communists of the 50s, the "Barbarians" of Europe as you mentioned & the Terrorists of today) It's not a coincidence. Check out professor Rene Girard[1] from of Stanford if you haven't heard of him. The people who run this show know exactly what they are doing. [1]http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rene+girard+scapegoat http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rene+girard+scap...
nullc 13y ago
A lot of people— sometimes the most technically competent ones— were busily telling them that wholesale surveillance was infeasible... greatly underestimating the available funding and ingenuity. So it was easy to imagine that only a few things were being intercepted: Communications be an amorphous "bad people". A distant problem for someone else. In the mean time digital communications devices, cloud services, social media, etc. have become increasingly central to our lives— mediating more and more of our most private communications and storing our most trusted data. Most of it has built on an architectural house of cards which provides little systemic security beyond "hasn't screwed you yet". The fact that this is happening to _everyone_, that the data is being correlated and stored— perhaps forever— that the argued legal basis of the program itself is cloaked in secrecy, that the public has been denied the ability to question something that potentially impacts the entire world, that the leaders of technology companies that we trust with our most personal data are either clueless or lying— as they make claims that appear to contradict the whitehouse. And now it's becoming clear enough that its harder to say "well, maybe it isn't really happening" (even as you say "which may ver well be fake!)or "the black box rooms are for someone else" and so instead of ignoring it people are being forced to process the information. Some of them feel violated and upset. "Hasn't screwed you yet" is starting to look a little too weak once considered in the sunshine.
- whatevenisthis 13y ago
  The fact is there are almost no facts. The NSA is allegedly putting some stuff in a database. That's essentially the "facts." We don't know what, or how, or really understand the scope. We don't know if it's real time or archival. There are ZERO technical details. The only thing that concerns me is that the NSA is actually somewhat incompetent, as those three PowerPoint slides make it seem like the kind of security strategy developed by a 12 year old kid. I would have assumed that the NSA wouldn't need to ask Facebook or Google to participate. I just assumed that they could get access to any encryption keys necessary through any number of ways, and syphon off the data wholesale at the ISP level. These aren't exactly "secure" organizations. Gmail accounts routinely get hacked by 15 year old Chinese kids trying to steal WoW passwords. I would hope the NSA could do much better.
fargolime 13y ago
Already this is scrolling off the news. It's a safe bet that the vast majority of voters either don't care or don't feel they can change it. If they do try to change it, they put themselves at risk. The surveillance will continue and become more pervasive. As before, if you don't have anything to hide you have nothing to fear, until you do.
snom380 13y ago
How indeed, but people smoke and stuff their mouths full of unhealthy food even if they know it can kill them. Humans aren't always 100% rational beings. When they suddenly get cancer (ie actual proof) they wake up. Also, this isn't just about the NSA but also about FBI, and that order certainly isn't fake.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
What's your question? How someone could possibly dare to care about something they did not care about before? How being pummeled 24/7 with reports about terrists and nucular mushroom clouds could possibly have lead to an atmosphere in which questioning the NSA was not an issue, what with starting wars all over the place and what not? And what's with "being surprised" somehow being the only time where people to be allowed to discuss things? What's with that "argument" showing up all the time? If that's the only criticism you have, you have none, are you aware of that?
- whatevenisthis 13y ago
  You're a cat.
- Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
  It is a rhetorical tactic of whisking the issue away. Hey guys, this is old news, lets not talk about it.
otsuichi 13y ago
It's not because we have more information, it's that THEY have a lot more information. The amount of our lives that we divulge to or involve the internet has shot up exponentially, certainly since the 1990s but when you think about it, even since, say 2000-2005.
jamestc 13y ago
Threads like these might as well be generated by an algorithm. >NSA news >Why is everybody so surprised!? comment Like clockwork. Let me ask you, though. Do you really think that people only "suddenly" care (with the implication of ignorance or a contradiction on their part) or is it possible that there are nuanced differences between all of the things you casually reference as common knowledge and the current NSA news? I mean, there is speculation and there is confirmation. There are hunches and there are reputable sources. There is pointing somebody to the Room 641A Wikipedia page and there is telling somebody, "hey, look, this guy who was a part of the NSA is not only confirming this, but has sacrificed his career to give us even more information about it." The public unconscious may have assumed that this was going on, clusters of people may have known, but you're underestimating how people compartmentalize this kind of knowledge. So when we have an event that brings a lot of this knowledge together and to the forefront and gives us something we can point to and talk about (even if it's only a story or a face at this point), I don't think we should pass up the opportunity to develop a louder voice about all of this rather than being cynical AGAIN just because we can't resist putting down public outcry.
mcherm 13y ago
The difference now is two issues: (1) Previously, various official sources have denied this sort of thing was happening. As a specific example, Congress has asked and been told that universal surveillance of US citizens was not occurring, and the plain-text meaning of the law makes universal surveillance of US citizens illegal. (Now we are told that this is contradicted by a secret legal opinion.) (2) Frog boiling. You can argue that at every point along the way the difference from the previous point is not big enough to cause an outcry. But there is a fallacy in this reasoning: at some point the aggregate IS enough to cause an outcry. Right now, there is an outcry among the media (partly exacerbated because these stories about leaks are contemporaneous with cases of prosecuting the media for leaks), perhaps it will spread to politicians and the citizenry.
- fpp 13y ago
  (1) The FBI has just recently acknowledged that all (including all U.S. citizens') electronic communications are tapped - the NSA is/was not allowed to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens (with exceptions now seemingly the rule). (2) You do know that Friedrich Goltz, the creator of the "Boiling Frog" experiment had the brains of the frogs removed, only then these did not jump out of the heating water - I hope you're using the reference to this experiment intentionally that way
nhaehnle 13y ago
Did you even read the article/mail? The author makes a lucid argument which you totally fail to address: > And so—before the capability was made public, it _likely_ wouldn't > have been used against mere political nuisances, at least not without > the additional cost of creating a solid pretext for the resulting > intelligence. But now this deterrent is gone: the burden of utter secrecy > is reduced. And if these programs are not eliminated, greatly curtailed, > or made moot, we can expect them to be employed much more freely.
paganel 13y ago
> You send data in plaintext and are surprised that the NSA might be reading/logging it? I live in Europe, it's true, but even so I would expect my Government not to enter my house without a proper warrant, even though I've only locked the door once when I left for office this morning. And when I'm mentioning "proper warrant" I'm thinking about Stalin's "Great Purge", which did use the Soviet legal system of the time that I find no worse than today's "secret courts". A parody of justice is not justice.
lsc 13y ago
>Why do people seem to suddenly care? You can't say it's because, "We have more information," because we really don't. People suddenly care about privacy? Now, I don't have my finger on the pulse of the everyman... not by a longshot. But within my own echo chamber? all those things were pretty big deals. As you said, nobody else cared, yeah. But they were a big deal to the news I read. My question to you, is "Does anyone care about this?" I mean, I know I care, and I know my own echo chamber is all shook up, but if my "media bubble" mattered? we'd have been on IPv6 a decade ago. So yeah. what does Fox news have to say about this? Hm. Looking, it's got something about how Ron Paul is worked up, but the other bits there seem to be about how much jailtime the whistleblower is getting. There's a neutral to positive article about what the NSA does. Go to npr.org, for the mainstream left, and there's an opinion piece calling Obama "big brother" - so I guess that's something? We'll see how long the stories last. But yeah... I think you are mistaking your own media bubble for the world as a whole. My guess? The average Facebook user is going to shrug and keep using facebook. Hell, this is going to be a big deal for me (as most of my customers also live in the same media bubble or echo chamber or whatever you want to call it as I do.) - I don't have any real response, either. (I've been talking about setting up customer portals where you can see all log data I have about you... but that's hard to do well enough that I can honestly say "This is ALL the data I have about you," and it's not like I don't have a whole bunch of other work to do, and really? as a VPS provider, well, most of what I log is access to your serial console and the like. Really, everything the NSA would want would be within your VPS. Well, that and the ip -> billing data mapping, but I think you know I'm keeping that.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

microb 13y ago

What I'm about to say is absolutely nuts, but it could be that this is something the NSA leaked intentionally and the media is running with it for reasons we are not aware of. Despite twitter and the like, the mainstream media is still largely in control of what occupies the "news" and therefore what the otherwise apathetic public is concerned about.

cdvonstinkpot 13y ago
Ok, I'll bite. What sort of hypothetical could warrant such an action, intentionally leaking this story? Do they want to reassure us of their best efforts in protecting us from terrorism? I can't imagine a scenario existing where the tables might eventually turn & those who were once appalled & angry that the NSA was so into everything change their minds and become reassured that the gov't is actually on their game & has the means to get some outrageous terrorist threat we couldn't have imagined under control again because of their broad wiretapping capabilities.
- microb 13y ago
  Security reassurance is something I hadn't thought of, but I think you are right that this leak goes way too far for that to work. I don't believe this either...but if I wore a tinfoil-hat I would point out that: 1) The NSA "leak" is not really news because it was reported in 2006[1]. 2) "Bad" publicity from it is the beginning of Obama's 2nd term downfall which is happening too soon in his 2nd term for us to be angry enough to elect a Libertarian 2016. It'll be an opportune time to usher in an all-talk small government Republican in 2016 to maintain Red State vs. Blue State illusion. Even if the Repub doesn't win, it'll look like the election was a close ideological fight, which is all that matters in the eyes of the public. Of course, all 2016 candidates will continue to support the NSA oversight regardless of what they say during their campaign, so it won't matter whether red or blue gets the oval office. Like I said... science fiction. [1]http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.h...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
kintamanimatt 13y ago
It's reaching considerably, but the only two reasons that could be true is if the truth is considerably worse (or will be) and the NSA is getting the world used to the idea of pervasive surveillance inch-by-inch (unlikely), or it's not as bad as it's being made out to be and they're framing reality in terms of a more dire alternative. An example of the latter would be that infamous daughter's letter home to parents. [1] The reality is probably that the unauthorized leak is just that, an unauthorized leak and a lot of people internally are pissed as hell. The surveillance apparatus in the US and other places is probably more developed than we know about and probably getting more sophisticated. [1] http://www.snopes.com/college/pranks/letter.asp http://www.snopes.com/college/pranks/letter.asp
paganel 13y ago
> What I'm about to say is absolutely nuts, but it could be that this is something the NSA leaked intentionally I had a similar thought this morning, not necessarily about the NSA leaking this on purpose, but about how they could turn this into their own advantage. You can already see that Obama has gone on record saying that "we cannot fight against terror without giving away some of our freedoms" (or something very similar to this, I'm too lazy to search for the exact quote), a statement which he couldn't have made before this scandal. What's really more disconcerting are all those comments (reasonably highly voted) coming from what seem to be genuine American citizens saying something very similar to what Obama is saying: "We can't fight terrorism if we don't let the Government go through our stuff". A little bit OT, I'm surprised nobody has yet made a parallel between present-days United States and the end times of the Roman Republic. You just have to replace today's "terrorists" with the "Barbarians/Germans" of that time and Julius Caesar with today's over-reaching Government. The bad news is that for all of Brutus's and Cicero's efforts Caesar was followed by future emperor Augustus and the end of the Roman Republic.
- microb 13y ago
  We're definitely not immune to collapse. Nuclear weapons just make things a collapse more sticky. Society needs a scapegoat to channel it's inherent violence (ie the Communists of the 50s, the "Barbarians" of Europe as you mentioned & the Terrorists of today) It's not a coincidence. Check out professor Rene Girard[1] from of Stanford if you haven't heard of him. The people who run this show know exactly what they are doing. [1]http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rene+girard+scapegoat http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rene+girard+scap...

nullc 13y ago

A lot of people— sometimes the most technically competent ones— were busily telling them that wholesale surveillance was infeasible... greatly underestimating the available funding and ingenuity. So it was easy to imagine that only a few things were being intercepted: Communications be an amorphous "bad people". A distant problem for someone else. In the mean time digital communications devices, cloud services, social media, etc. have become increasingly central to our lives— mediating more and more of our most private communications and storing our most trusted data. Most of it has built on an architectural house of cards which provides little systemic security beyond "hasn't screwed you yet". The fact that this is happening to _everyone_, that the data is being correlated and stored— perhaps forever— that the argued legal basis of the program itself is cloaked in secrecy, that the public has been denied the ability to question something that potentially impacts the entire world, that the leaders of technology companies that we trust with our most personal data are either clueless or lying— as they make claims that appear to contradict the whitehouse. And now it's becoming clear enough that its harder to say "well, maybe it isn't really happening" (even as you say "which may ver well be fake!)or "the black box rooms are for someone else" and so instead of ignoring it people are being forced to process the information. Some of them feel violated and upset. "Hasn't screwed you yet" is starting to look a little too weak once considered in the sunshine.

whatevenisthis 13y ago
The fact is there are almost no facts. The NSA is allegedly putting some stuff in a database. That's essentially the "facts." We don't know what, or how, or really understand the scope. We don't know if it's real time or archival. There are ZERO technical details. The only thing that concerns me is that the NSA is actually somewhat incompetent, as those three PowerPoint slides make it seem like the kind of security strategy developed by a 12 year old kid. I would have assumed that the NSA wouldn't need to ask Facebook or Google to participate. I just assumed that they could get access to any encryption keys necessary through any number of ways, and syphon off the data wholesale at the ISP level. These aren't exactly "secure" organizations. Gmail accounts routinely get hacked by 15 year old Chinese kids trying to steal WoW passwords. I would hope the NSA could do much better.

fargolime 13y ago

Already this is scrolling off the news. It's a safe bet that the vast majority of voters either don't care or don't feel they can change it. If they do try to change it, they put themselves at risk. The surveillance will continue and become more pervasive. As before, if you don't have anything to hide you have nothing to fear, until you do.

snom380 13y ago

How indeed, but people smoke and stuff their mouths full of unhealthy food even if they know it can kill them. Humans aren't always 100% rational beings. When they suddenly get cancer (ie actual proof) they wake up. Also, this isn't just about the NSA but also about FBI, and that order certainly isn't fake.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

What's your question? How someone could possibly dare to care about something they did not care about before? How being pummeled 24/7 with reports about terrists and nucular mushroom clouds could possibly have lead to an atmosphere in which questioning the NSA was not an issue, what with starting wars all over the place and what not? And what's with "being surprised" somehow being the only time where people to be allowed to discuss things? What's with that "argument" showing up all the time? If that's the only criticism you have, you have none, are you aware of that?

whatevenisthis 13y ago
You're a cat.
Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
It is a rhetorical tactic of whisking the issue away. Hey guys, this is old news, lets not talk about it.

otsuichi 13y ago

It's not because we have more information, it's that THEY have a lot more information. The amount of our lives that we divulge to or involve the internet has shot up exponentially, certainly since the 1990s but when you think about it, even since, say 2000-2005.

jamestc 13y ago

Threads like these might as well be generated by an algorithm. >NSA news >Why is everybody so surprised!? comment Like clockwork. Let me ask you, though. Do you really think that people only "suddenly" care (with the implication of ignorance or a contradiction on their part) or is it possible that there are nuanced differences between all of the things you casually reference as common knowledge and the current NSA news? I mean, there is speculation and there is confirmation. There are hunches and there are reputable sources. There is pointing somebody to the Room 641A Wikipedia page and there is telling somebody, "hey, look, this guy who was a part of the NSA is not only confirming this, but has sacrificed his career to give us even more information about it." The public unconscious may have assumed that this was going on, clusters of people may have known, but you're underestimating how people compartmentalize this kind of knowledge. So when we have an event that brings a lot of this knowledge together and to the forefront and gives us something we can point to and talk about (even if it's only a story or a face at this point), I don't think we should pass up the opportunity to develop a louder voice about all of this rather than being cynical AGAIN just because we can't resist putting down public outcry.

mcherm 13y ago

The difference now is two issues: (1) Previously, various official sources have denied this sort of thing was happening. As a specific example, Congress has asked and been told that universal surveillance of US citizens was not occurring, and the plain-text meaning of the law makes universal surveillance of US citizens illegal. (Now we are told that this is contradicted by a secret legal opinion.) (2) Frog boiling. You can argue that at every point along the way the difference from the previous point is not big enough to cause an outcry. But there is a fallacy in this reasoning: at some point the aggregate IS enough to cause an outcry. Right now, there is an outcry among the media (partly exacerbated because these stories about leaks are contemporaneous with cases of prosecuting the media for leaks), perhaps it will spread to politicians and the citizenry.

fpp 13y ago
(1) The FBI has just recently acknowledged that all (including all U.S. citizens') electronic communications are tapped - the NSA is/was not allowed to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens (with exceptions now seemingly the rule). (2) You do know that Friedrich Goltz, the creator of the "Boiling Frog" experiment had the brains of the frogs removed, only then these did not jump out of the heating water - I hope you're using the reference to this experiment intentionally that way

nhaehnle 13y ago

Did you even read the article/mail? The author makes a lucid argument which you totally fail to address: > And so—before the capability was made public, it _likely_ wouldn't > have been used against mere political nuisances, at least not without > the additional cost of creating a solid pretext for the resulting > intelligence. But now this deterrent is gone: the burden of utter secrecy > is reduced. And if these programs are not eliminated, greatly curtailed, > or made moot, we can expect them to be employed much more freely.

paganel 13y ago

> You send data in plaintext and are surprised that the NSA might be reading/logging it? I live in Europe, it's true, but even so I would expect my Government not to enter my house without a proper warrant, even though I've only locked the door once when I left for office this morning. And when I'm mentioning "proper warrant" I'm thinking about Stalin's "Great Purge", which did use the Soviet legal system of the time that I find no worse than today's "secret courts". A parody of justice is not justice.

lsc 13y ago

>Why do people seem to suddenly care? You can't say it's because, "We have more information," because we really don't. People suddenly care about privacy? Now, I don't have my finger on the pulse of the everyman... not by a longshot. But within my own echo chamber? all those things were pretty big deals. As you said, nobody else cared, yeah. But they were a big deal to the news I read. My question to you, is "Does anyone care about this?" I mean, I know I care, and I know my own echo chamber is all shook up, but if my "media bubble" mattered? we'd have been on IPv6 a decade ago. So yeah. what does Fox news have to say about this? Hm. Looking, it's got something about how Ron Paul is worked up, but the other bits there seem to be about how much jailtime the whistleblower is getting. There's a neutral to positive article about what the NSA does. Go to npr.org, for the mainstream left, and there's an opinion piece calling Obama "big brother" - so I guess that's something? We'll see how long the stories last. But yeah... I think you are mistaking your own media bubble for the world as a whole. My guess? The average Facebook user is going to shrug and keep using facebook. Hell, this is going to be a big deal for me (as most of my customers also live in the same media bubble or echo chamber or whatever you want to call it as I do.) - I don't have any real response, either. (I've been talking about setting up customer portals where you can see all log data I have about you... but that's hard to do well enough that I can honestly say "This is ALL the data I have about you," and it's not like I don't have a whole bunch of other work to do, and really? as a VPS provider, well, most of what I log is access to your serial console and the like. Really, everything the NSA would want would be within your VPS. Well, that and the ip -> billing data mapping, but I think you know I'm keeping that.)