3 ms·

We have no context for what "flagged" or "monitoring" means, though. There's no indication that these rules are taken to mean anything in isolation beyond what

by GHFigs 12y ago

We have no context for what "flagged" or "monitoring" means, though. There's no indication that these rules are taken to mean anything in isolation beyond what is frankly common sense. The idea that just Googling Tails means you're monitored is a narrative leap. If I write an email about Viagra, the recipient's spam filter is undoubtedly going to consider it to have a non-zero probability of being spam. That doesn't mean it will be blocked, in the end. Nor does it mean that the spam filter is wrong to take notice.

opendais 12y ago
Yes. But do you honestly expect them to provide that context so we can be sure?
- GHFigs 12y ago
  My point is that they (the authors of the article) don't have that context. They're just covering up the lack of information with FUD.
  - opendais 12y ago
    Yes, and the NSA would refuse to give the context...so you have to make assumptions about information about them.
    - GHFigs 12y ago
      I think those assumptions are not supported by the available evidence[1], and that the authors they know this. Who cares what the NSA says? I'm looking at the same thing the authors are presenting and drawing different conclusions. [1] Including the abundance of evidence already available about XKEYSCORE.
      - opendais 12y ago
        You have every right to disagree. :) I think erring on the side of the assumption that is bad for everyone is more likely to be true. Especially since its consistent with the NSA's overreach in other areas. For instance: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analysts-purposefully-violated-privacy-rights http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analy... or http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-on-privacy-audit-shows.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-o... If they break the law over 2,500 times a year with no apparent consequences, do you honestly think its likely you are right? If so, good on you. Personally, I'd rather assume things are more in line with the other abuses than dismiss them out of hand. In what way is the assumption that they are tagging/tracking the sessions not consistent with: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.... ? The fact some are US-based? But we already know they violate that regularly, 'accidentally'. The volume of data? We already know they have datacenters large enough to store and analyze it. I'm genuinely curious why you draw those conclusions.
rblatz 12y ago
I think the fact that they can tag us based on what we searched or read is chilling. It's even more chilling that now the argument has been flipped from being appalled that our right to privacy has been utterly destroyed online, to arguing if it's right to be flagged for further review for simply searching or reading about specific subjects.

by GHFigs 12y ago

opendais 12y ago

Yes. But do you honestly expect them to provide that context so we can be sure?

GHFigs 12y ago
My point is that they (the authors of the article) don't have that context. They're just covering up the lack of information with FUD.
- opendais 12y ago
  Yes, and the NSA would refuse to give the context...so you have to make assumptions about information about them.
  - GHFigs 12y ago
    I think those assumptions are not supported by the available evidence[1], and that the authors they know this. Who cares what the NSA says? I'm looking at the same thing the authors are presenting and drawing different conclusions. [1] Including the abundance of evidence already available about XKEYSCORE.
    - opendais 12y ago
      You have every right to disagree. :) I think erring on the side of the assumption that is bad for everyone is more likely to be true. Especially since its consistent with the NSA's overreach in other areas. For instance: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analysts-purposefully-violated-privacy-rights http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analy... or http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-on-privacy-audit-shows.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-o... If they break the law over 2,500 times a year with no apparent consequences, do you honestly think its likely you are right? If so, good on you. Personally, I'd rather assume things are more in line with the other abuses than dismiss them out of hand. In what way is the assumption that they are tagging/tracking the sessions not consistent with: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.... ? The fact some are US-based? But we already know they violate that regularly, 'accidentally'. The volume of data? We already know they have datacenters large enough to store and analyze it. I'm genuinely curious why you draw those conclusions.

rblatz 12y ago

I think the fact that they can tag us based on what we searched or read is chilling. It's even more chilling that now the argument has been flipped from being appalled that our right to privacy has been utterly destroyed online, to arguing if it's right to be flagged for further review for simply searching or reading about specific subjects.