4 ms·

I guess the point I'm making is there is no obscurity to be gained by throwing your actions in with a pool of others' because it is all itemized and catalogued.

by tankbot 13y ago

I guess the point I'm making is there is no obscurity to be gained by throwing your actions in with a pool of others' because it is all itemized and catalogued. So what's better? A detailed account of everything you did, or the knowledge that you went to a place, but nobody knows for sure what happened there. EDIT: To answer your question about Petraeus - "The fact that he used Gmail" is enough. You can stop there.

danso 13y ago
> EDIT: To answer your question about Petraeus - "The fact that he used Gmail" is enough. You can stop there. Well, this is where you and I will have to disagree. Assuming there wasn't a more ordered conspiracy (i.e. Petraeus was outed because of world-level politics), then Petraeus's exposure had nothing to do with the email service he used. His mistress drew attention to herself by sending anonymous threats that made reference to him and did not do enough to separate herself (such as using a different IP) from those messages. The point is, surveillance is not solely something in the digital domain, and so making a service change is not automatically a beneficial tradeoff. People used these popular services for a reason: mostly because of their ease and power. When they switch to a less powerful version, that may introduce behavior changes that cause slip ups. And I thought this could go without saying, but we all know that social engineering is by far the biggest cause for security breaches. And if the teenage script-kiddies can exploit that with ease, what makes you think the NSA can't? The relevant part to this discussion is that, again, less-used services have less-built in precautions against such identity attacks.
- tankbot 13y ago
  You are arguing about what shows up on the NSA's radar that causes them to go searching, I'm talking about limiting what they can easily find. You're right about Broadwell's actions triggering the investigation, I'm saying his email wouldn't have been part of that investigation if he hadn't used Gmail and instead opted to secure the messages. And let's be honest: The director of the CIA should know better! It doesn't matter what causes the NSA to go looking, what matters is what they find. Edward Snowden makes this point himself in the original interview. They have collected data on you for years, just sitting there waiting to be scrutinized for whatever reason. Your second and third paragraphs are irrelevant to the point of condescension. We're talking about warrantless digital surveillance of US citizens not possible maybes and what-ifs.
  - danso 13y ago
    > It doesn't matter what causes the NSA to go looking, what matters is what they find. Sorry, but I disagree with that. It is very much about what causes them to go looking, because NSA analyst time is finite. If you remember from Snowden's interview, he said this: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/edward-snowden-the-nsa-leaker-comes-forward.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/edwa... > “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail,” Note the qualifier at the end. He's claiming that the NSA can read the emails of anyone once they know the address. The implications are that investigation and surveillance are done when a target is specified. If President Obama doesn't use barack.obama@gmail.com from a known IP address, then his emails are essentially hidden from the NSA. If you are in a situation where the NSA knows of the identities you are using, no matter what service, and they choose to target you, then you are screwed no matter what.
    - tankbot 13y ago
      > Note the qualifier at the end. He's claiming that the NSA can read the emails of anyone once they know the address. The implications are that investigation and surveillance are done when a target is specified. Those certainly are not the implications. He explicitly explains that all data from all people is always ingested by default. The surveillance is already happening right now. He needs the email address (or other information, note Snowden's reference to a "selector") in order to query the already monumental database of information and possibly to pull in future collections. But this isn't magical. Knowing an email address doesn't mean you can decrypt secured messages. It does mean they can access information gathered from their sources of which Gmail is a known source. And re: Why They Go Looking - Snowden says this: It’s getting to the point, you don’t have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they could use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer. > If President Obama doesn't use barack.obama@gmail.com from a known IP address, then his emails are essentially hidden from the NSA. Exactly.

by tankbot 13y ago

danso 13y ago

> EDIT: To answer your question about Petraeus - "The fact that he used Gmail" is enough. You can stop there. Well, this is where you and I will have to disagree. Assuming there wasn't a more ordered conspiracy (i.e. Petraeus was outed because of world-level politics), then Petraeus's exposure had nothing to do with the email service he used. His mistress drew attention to herself by sending anonymous threats that made reference to him and did not do enough to separate herself (such as using a different IP) from those messages. The point is, surveillance is not solely something in the digital domain, and so making a service change is not automatically a beneficial tradeoff. People used these popular services for a reason: mostly because of their ease and power. When they switch to a less powerful version, that may introduce behavior changes that cause slip ups. And I thought this could go without saying, but we all know that social engineering is by far the biggest cause for security breaches. And if the teenage script-kiddies can exploit that with ease, what makes you think the NSA can't? The relevant part to this discussion is that, again, less-used services have less-built in precautions against such identity attacks.

tankbot 13y ago
You are arguing about what shows up on the NSA's radar that causes them to go searching, I'm talking about limiting what they can easily find. You're right about Broadwell's actions triggering the investigation, I'm saying his email wouldn't have been part of that investigation if he hadn't used Gmail and instead opted to secure the messages. And let's be honest: The director of the CIA should know better! It doesn't matter what causes the NSA to go looking, what matters is what they find. Edward Snowden makes this point himself in the original interview. They have collected data on you for years, just sitting there waiting to be scrutinized for whatever reason. Your second and third paragraphs are irrelevant to the point of condescension. We're talking about warrantless digital surveillance of US citizens not possible maybes and what-ifs.
- danso 13y ago
  > It doesn't matter what causes the NSA to go looking, what matters is what they find. Sorry, but I disagree with that. It is very much about what causes them to go looking, because NSA analyst time is finite. If you remember from Snowden's interview, he said this: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/edward-snowden-the-nsa-leaker-comes-forward.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/edwa... > “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail,” Note the qualifier at the end. He's claiming that the NSA can read the emails of anyone once they know the address. The implications are that investigation and surveillance are done when a target is specified. If President Obama doesn't use barack.obama@gmail.com from a known IP address, then his emails are essentially hidden from the NSA. If you are in a situation where the NSA knows of the identities you are using, no matter what service, and they choose to target you, then you are screwed no matter what.
  - tankbot 13y ago
    > Note the qualifier at the end. He's claiming that the NSA can read the emails of anyone once they know the address. The implications are that investigation and surveillance are done when a target is specified. Those certainly are not the implications. He explicitly explains that all data from all people is always ingested by default. The surveillance is already happening right now. He needs the email address (or other information, note Snowden's reference to a "selector") in order to query the already monumental database of information and possibly to pull in future collections. But this isn't magical. Knowing an email address doesn't mean you can decrypt secured messages. It does mean they can access information gathered from their sources of which Gmail is a known source. And re: Why They Go Looking - Snowden says this: It’s getting to the point, you don’t have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they could use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer. > If President Obama doesn't use barack.obama@gmail.com from a known IP address, then his emails are essentially hidden from the NSA. Exactly.