3 ms·

The point is about dragnet surveillance. Since info is centralized, it can be copied without too many people being aware that it's being done. E.g., the copying

by taway2012 13y ago

The point is about dragnet surveillance. Since info is centralized, it can be copied without too many people being aware that it's being done. E.g., the copying of info from Google etc was done without any "hacking" or backdoors. Whereas doing the same scale of info copying by individually accessing users' computers/phones would be WAY WAY more detectable. Typing in a hurry, sorry if the point isn't clear.

espeed 13y ago
As I understand it, the NSA does not have unfettered access to all of Google's/Facebook's data so it makes FISA requests on individual users, which the online companies have not been permitted to include in their transparency reports (http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/). Dragnet surveillance techniques such as tapping fiber is a different issue. Regarding detectability, I'm sure they have methods for downloading phone data that are hard to detect and would look like malware if someone happened to detect it.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >As I understand it, the NSA does not have unfettered access to all of Google's/Facebook's data so it makes FISA requests on individual users You may continue to hold that opinion, but I see no reason to trust denials by either the gov't or by Google/Facebook/et al. "Unfettered access" is easy to deny, but it may be the case that what the gov't has amounts to the same thing, or is effectively unfettered access. The gov't officials involved have little incentive to tell the truth, and a large incentive to conceal their activities. The corporate parties may be compelled to lie, or at least be unable to tell the truth (under duress). >Dragnet surveillance techniques such as tapping fiber is a different issue. A single program of many. Don't confuse gov't denials concerning one activity under one program, as proof that the gov't isn't conducting that activity under some other program by another name. Also, gov't officials have been caught in outright lies James Clapper, for example. >I'm sure they have methods for downloading phone data that are hard to detect and would look like malware if someone happened to detect it. Phones report their users' every activity, this has been discussed here and on the internet at large, at length, several times over the past few years. Most recently was the disclosure related to Motorola phones which is still on the front page. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5973282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5973282
  - espeed 13y ago
    > Don't confuse gov't denials concerning one activity under one program, as proof that the gov't isn't conducting that activity under some other program by another name I'm not ruling out any scenario -- just pointing out that even if Google/Facebook refuse to comply with the NSA or you decide to stop storing data in the cloud, it may not do much to protect your privacy because your phone is not a safe haven.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

espeed 13y ago

As I understand it, the NSA does not have unfettered access to all of Google's/Facebook's data so it makes FISA requests on individual users, which the online companies have not been permitted to include in their transparency reports (http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/). Dragnet surveillance techniques such as tapping fiber is a different issue. Regarding detectability, I'm sure they have methods for downloading phone data that are hard to detect and would look like malware if someone happened to detect it.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>As I understand it, the NSA does not have unfettered access to all of Google's/Facebook's data so it makes FISA requests on individual users You may continue to hold that opinion, but I see no reason to trust denials by either the gov't or by Google/Facebook/et al. "Unfettered access" is easy to deny, but it may be the case that what the gov't has amounts to the same thing, or is effectively unfettered access. The gov't officials involved have little incentive to tell the truth, and a large incentive to conceal their activities. The corporate parties may be compelled to lie, or at least be unable to tell the truth (under duress). >Dragnet surveillance techniques such as tapping fiber is a different issue. A single program of many. Don't confuse gov't denials concerning one activity under one program, as proof that the gov't isn't conducting that activity under some other program by another name. Also, gov't officials have been caught in outright lies James Clapper, for example. >I'm sure they have methods for downloading phone data that are hard to detect and would look like malware if someone happened to detect it. Phones report their users' every activity, this has been discussed here and on the internet at large, at length, several times over the past few years. Most recently was the disclosure related to Motorola phones which is still on the front page. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5973282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5973282
- espeed 13y ago
  > Don't confuse gov't denials concerning one activity under one program, as proof that the gov't isn't conducting that activity under some other program by another name I'm not ruling out any scenario -- just pointing out that even if Google/Facebook refuse to comply with the NSA or you decide to stop storing data in the cloud, it may not do much to protect your privacy because your phone is not a safe haven.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]