11 ms·

Declassified Documents Prove NSA Is Tapping the Internet

214 points by engtech 13y ago

einhverfr 13y ago
Where this is going is a clear showdown on a large number of levels. I wish I could be optimistic about this being resolved decisively for the good guys but I think most likely we are likely to see a codification of the same stalemate. The NSA has created a large market for services like Silent Circle and this means that a larger number of wiretaps and the like are likely to "go dark" as a result of encryption. We need fully open source and federated versions of things like Silent Circle has and those will come about. But this will lead to new battles about encryption and government access to encryption. As the people start realizing that everything is tapped by default, they will start protecting themselves. Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused. Now that we know that this trust has been broken there is no way to go back. We will see two battles in the near future. The first will be a battle over the size and scope of the surveillance state. I fear the NSA will win that one hands down. But the second is over government access to encryption backdoors. We have more reason to be optimistic here. Things are shaping up to create a huge showdown. I, for one, am relatively afraid of the consequences even if we win the second battle.
- hobs 13y ago
  Yeah, I think many of the same things. How are we supposed to challenge a secret program that even the overseers say they are overreaching, and yet wont acknowledge it exists, or that anyone has any right to sue because they cant prove the secret program targeted them. Its a complete farce as far as I can tell, and the dog and pony show will eventually calm and then we will basically be in the same position as we ever were. I will definitely be voting against those that support this buffoonery, but I don't know that most will.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    What's worse, the NSA can pass on what the DEA will claim are anonymous tips that lead to evidence that lead to searches, etc. We become a society of "find me the man and I'll show you the crime" but with a stronger illusion to the rule of law than Stalin was able to muster.
    - LoganCale 13y ago
      They are already doing this. The NSA gives the DEA information, which the DEA then hides from everyone, including judges, and uses it to build a parallel case against the people the NSA spied on. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        Just for the record, I chose that example because I was aware of the fact it was happening. The scary thing though is that this means that people the NSA doesn't like can find themselves at the center of whatever scrutiny they think is most appropriate.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  >Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused. They were abused for a long time and we did nothing. The difference was you had to physically tap the line while the call was taking place, and then physically listen to the entire call.This placed enormous limitations. Now you can automatically store everyone's calls (translated to text), and search the entire database with a keyword search. But this is one of those things that, sadly, few people outside of places like HN have the slightest understanding of.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    I stand by my initial wording though. Wiretaps were tolerated because they required a court order and we could trust in a process that seemed to work. But what has happened since is that particularized search warrants have been replaced by 1772-style general warrants. People now know that this trust has been broken on a tremendous scale and we can't go back. That's the difference. In other words the key change is in perception more than in substance.
bengrunfeld 13y ago
As a new immigrant to the USA, I am simply appalled at the infringement of privacy that is being carried out by the NSA and the government. In Australia, we learned that the 1st amendment protected the Freedom of Speech of every American. How can you have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press when every private communication of citizens and reporters alike are being scrutinized by secret agencies in the government??
- LoganCale 13y ago
  You can't. But a large number of people seem to not care, because they're already so used to putting every thought that pops into their head online where everyone can see it.
  - bengrunfeld 13y ago
    Right, but this isn't just about teeny-boppers posting pics of themselves partaking in underage drinking on Facebook. This is about journalists being intimidated by government representatives if they start writing an article on their private computer that is embarrassing to a particular senator. Sorry, but that's in a totally different baseball league.
    - LoganCale 13y ago
      I agree absolutely. But try explaining that to people whose immediate response to this every time it comes up is "I ain't got nothing to hide, if Obama wants to read my texts he can go ahead and be bored."
      - bengrunfeld 13y ago
        LoganCale, get them to watch the movie Brazil and then read 1984, and for good measure hit them with a copy of Animal Farm just for the heck of it. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
jnbiche 13y ago
Two things are bothering me immensely: 1. Each time something increasingly worse about the NSA surveillance gets revealed, or confirmed, Sens. Wyden and Udall release a statement saying something like: "This is only the tip of the iceberg: if Americans only knew how bad it was, they'd be very angry." They're on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so are in a position to know at least more than their colleagues, and much more than their employers (the American people). This is extremely disconcerting. What we know and now see confirmed officially about the surveillance is pretty stunning. Exactly how bad is this? Is all of congress tapped? All the governors? Snowden hinted at this. What the fuck is going on in my country? 2. So, if it's so bad, why won't the honorable Sens. Udall and Wyden take a stand and reveal the wrongdoings on the Senate floor? As I understand the law, they cannot be charged for anything revealed on the Senate floor. And even if there were a way to charge them, I'd like to think it would be political suicide for any president to try. These two gentleman swore an oath to the U.S. constitution. Why won't they uphold it? They are in a unique position to do so. The fact that they keep making these ominous statements is starting to seem more like a cover-your-ass strategy than an honest attempt to stop the illegal activities.
- Zoomla 13y ago
  They don't want to go to jail, maybe.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    That would be an interesting trial. If only we'd have politicians with the courage to take on such a crusade.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  They'll be kicked out of the committees that allow them access to that classified data and will be unable to do anything further to try and fight these things.
  - jnbiche 13y ago
    So their precious committee appointment is more important than their oath? Really, if that's all that's holding them back, then I've lost any respect I have for them. As things stand, they've been able to do very little to "fight these things" even sitting on the committee. What we need right now is to know the full extent of the damage. And they swore an oath to protect the constitution. Any fool can see what an existential threat this is to our constitution and country.
mcphilip 13y ago
Cue praise from the majority of the main stream media that only tens of thousands of communications are improperly monitored since there are roughly 150 billion emails sent per day (globally). The surveillance program will be declared a stunning success and most people will agree since they are impressed by small percentages. The error rate being so low will imply, to most people, that the NSA is painstakingly concerned with only monitoring pertinent communications. Out of curiosity, what is a good argument against this perspective that Average Joe can grok?
- morpher 13y ago
  Why are you less impressed by small percentages than by numbers that are large only in the absence of a reference scale? It's generally not possible to design flawless systems, and failure rate a much more meaningful number.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Because when it comes to this topic, normally sensible nerds throw out their good engineering sensibility.
  - mcphilip 13y ago
    I was looking for intelligent discussion about why even a small percentage failure rate is worth being alarmed at and how this can be communicated to Average Joe effectively. Instead, I get this inane straw man reply. Obviously a very small failure rate is impressive in the abstract. We're not talking about the abstract here, we're talking about foundational concerns about whether there can be an expectation of privacy in any online communication.
    - throwawaykf02 13y ago
      No. As long as people keep using the same online communications to plan inflicting harm on society as society does to exchange pictures of grandkids and recipes, those communications will keep being monitored, and thus we can have no expectation of privacy. Liberties have always been compromised for the sake of security, Benjamin Frankliin quotes notwithstanding. But! Taking these numbers at face value, the low error rate tells us that, yes, we can have privacy with pretty high probability. As with all things in life, it is not guaranteed, but these are much better chances than what we can expect in other aspects of life. I mean, tens of thousands erroneously picked up over many months out of the billions of emails exchanged daily? Why, you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack than be snooped on [1]! [1] No, I haven't run the numbers, just saying so for dramatic effect :-P
gasull 13y ago
This also proves that General Alexander lied to the public. Unsurprising, but worth saying it. Did Obama denied PRISM too or did he just let others deny it? If the former, isn't this a reason for impeachment?
SCAQTony 13y ago
We should shove our NSA rejection letters (mine was signed LOL) in their faces and make them give us our box loads of data along with out analytics scores.

214 points by engtech 13y ago

Where this is going is a clear showdown on a large number of levels. I wish I could be optimistic about this being resolved decisively for the good guys but I think most likely we are likely to see a codification of the same stalemate. The NSA has created a large market for services like Silent Circle and this means that a larger number of wiretaps and the like are likely to "go dark" as a result of encryption. We need fully open source and federated versions of things like Silent Circle has and those will come about. But this will lead to new battles about encryption and government access to encryption. As the people start realizing that everything is tapped by default, they will start protecting themselves. Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused. Now that we know that this trust has been broken there is no way to go back. We will see two battles in the near future. The first will be a battle over the size and scope of the surveillance state. I fear the NSA will win that one hands down. But the second is over government access to encryption backdoors. We have more reason to be optimistic here. Things are shaping up to create a huge showdown. I, for one, am relatively afraid of the consequences even if we win the second battle.

hobs 13y ago
Yeah, I think many of the same things. How are we supposed to challenge a secret program that even the overseers say they are overreaching, and yet wont acknowledge it exists, or that anyone has any right to sue because they cant prove the secret program targeted them. Its a complete farce as far as I can tell, and the dog and pony show will eventually calm and then we will basically be in the same position as we ever were. I will definitely be voting against those that support this buffoonery, but I don't know that most will.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  What's worse, the NSA can pass on what the DEA will claim are anonymous tips that lead to evidence that lead to searches, etc. We become a society of "find me the man and I'll show you the crime" but with a stronger illusion to the rule of law than Stalin was able to muster.
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    They are already doing this. The NSA gives the DEA information, which the DEA then hides from everyone, including judges, and uses it to build a parallel case against the people the NSA spied on. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Just for the record, I chose that example because I was aware of the fact it was happening. The scary thing though is that this means that people the NSA doesn't like can find themselves at the center of whatever scrutiny they think is most appropriate.
jivatmanx 13y ago
>Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused. They were abused for a long time and we did nothing. The difference was you had to physically tap the line while the call was taking place, and then physically listen to the entire call.This placed enormous limitations. Now you can automatically store everyone's calls (translated to text), and search the entire database with a keyword search. But this is one of those things that, sadly, few people outside of places like HN have the slightest understanding of.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I stand by my initial wording though. Wiretaps were tolerated because they required a court order and we could trust in a process that seemed to work. But what has happened since is that particularized search warrants have been replaced by 1772-style general warrants. People now know that this trust has been broken on a tremendous scale and we can't go back. That's the difference. In other words the key change is in perception more than in substance.

bengrunfeld 13y ago

As a new immigrant to the USA, I am simply appalled at the infringement of privacy that is being carried out by the NSA and the government. In Australia, we learned that the 1st amendment protected the Freedom of Speech of every American. How can you have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press when every private communication of citizens and reporters alike are being scrutinized by secret agencies in the government??

LoganCale 13y ago
You can't. But a large number of people seem to not care, because they're already so used to putting every thought that pops into their head online where everyone can see it.
- bengrunfeld 13y ago
  Right, but this isn't just about teeny-boppers posting pics of themselves partaking in underage drinking on Facebook. This is about journalists being intimidated by government representatives if they start writing an article on their private computer that is embarrassing to a particular senator. Sorry, but that's in a totally different baseball league.
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    I agree absolutely. But try explaining that to people whose immediate response to this every time it comes up is "I ain't got nothing to hide, if Obama wants to read my texts he can go ahead and be bored."
    - bengrunfeld 13y ago
      LoganCale, get them to watch the movie Brazil and then read 1984, and for good measure hit them with a copy of Animal Farm just for the heck of it. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

jnbiche 13y ago

Two things are bothering me immensely: 1. Each time something increasingly worse about the NSA surveillance gets revealed, or confirmed, Sens. Wyden and Udall release a statement saying something like: "This is only the tip of the iceberg: if Americans only knew how bad it was, they'd be very angry." They're on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so are in a position to know at least more than their colleagues, and much more than their employers (the American people). This is extremely disconcerting. What we know and now see confirmed officially about the surveillance is pretty stunning. Exactly how bad is this? Is all of congress tapped? All the governors? Snowden hinted at this. What the fuck is going on in my country? 2. So, if it's so bad, why won't the honorable Sens. Udall and Wyden take a stand and reveal the wrongdoings on the Senate floor? As I understand the law, they cannot be charged for anything revealed on the Senate floor. And even if there were a way to charge them, I'd like to think it would be political suicide for any president to try. These two gentleman swore an oath to the U.S. constitution. Why won't they uphold it? They are in a unique position to do so. The fact that they keep making these ominous statements is starting to seem more like a cover-your-ass strategy than an honest attempt to stop the illegal activities.

Zoomla 13y ago
They don't want to go to jail, maybe.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  That would be an interesting trial. If only we'd have politicians with the courage to take on such a crusade.
LoganCale 13y ago
They'll be kicked out of the committees that allow them access to that classified data and will be unable to do anything further to try and fight these things.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  So their precious committee appointment is more important than their oath? Really, if that's all that's holding them back, then I've lost any respect I have for them. As things stand, they've been able to do very little to "fight these things" even sitting on the committee. What we need right now is to know the full extent of the damage. And they swore an oath to protect the constitution. Any fool can see what an existential threat this is to our constitution and country.

mcphilip 13y ago

Cue praise from the majority of the main stream media that only tens of thousands of communications are improperly monitored since there are roughly 150 billion emails sent per day (globally). The surveillance program will be declared a stunning success and most people will agree since they are impressed by small percentages. The error rate being so low will imply, to most people, that the NSA is painstakingly concerned with only monitoring pertinent communications. Out of curiosity, what is a good argument against this perspective that Average Joe can grok?

morpher 13y ago
Why are you less impressed by small percentages than by numbers that are large only in the absence of a reference scale? It's generally not possible to design flawless systems, and failure rate a much more meaningful number.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Because when it comes to this topic, normally sensible nerds throw out their good engineering sensibility.
- mcphilip 13y ago
  I was looking for intelligent discussion about why even a small percentage failure rate is worth being alarmed at and how this can be communicated to Average Joe effectively. Instead, I get this inane straw man reply. Obviously a very small failure rate is impressive in the abstract. We're not talking about the abstract here, we're talking about foundational concerns about whether there can be an expectation of privacy in any online communication.
  - throwawaykf02 13y ago
    No. As long as people keep using the same online communications to plan inflicting harm on society as society does to exchange pictures of grandkids and recipes, those communications will keep being monitored, and thus we can have no expectation of privacy. Liberties have always been compromised for the sake of security, Benjamin Frankliin quotes notwithstanding. But! Taking these numbers at face value, the low error rate tells us that, yes, we can have privacy with pretty high probability. As with all things in life, it is not guaranteed, but these are much better chances than what we can expect in other aspects of life. I mean, tens of thousands erroneously picked up over many months out of the billions of emails exchanged daily? Why, you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack than be snooped on [1]! [1] No, I haven't run the numbers, just saying so for dramatic effect :-P

gasull 13y ago

This also proves that General Alexander lied to the public. Unsurprising, but worth saying it. Did Obama denied PRISM too or did he just let others deny it? If the former, isn't this a reason for impeachment?

SCAQTony 13y ago

We should shove our NSA rejection letters (mine was signed LOL) in their faces and make them give us our box loads of data along with out analytics scores.