Inside PRISM: Why the Government Hates Encryption 457
Lauren Weinstein writes "Now, what's really going on with PRISM? The government admits that the program exists, but says it is being 'mischaracterized' in significant ways (always a risk with secret projects sucking up information about your citizens' personal lives). The Internet firms named in the leaked documents are denying that they have provided 'back doors' to the government for data access. Who is telling the truth? Likely both. Based on previous information and the new leaks, we can make some pretty logical guesses about the actual shape of all this. Here's my take."
Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government admits that the program exists, but says it is being 'mischaracterized' in significant ways ... The Internet firms named in the leaked documents are denying that they have provided 'back doors' to the government for data access. Who is telling the truth? Likely both.
Considering that the government is not saying anything in particular, it is easy to tell the truth here. When they defend the program as a "crucial tool in war on terrorism", that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree. Thus anything could be a crucial tool.
it just occurred to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Rogue employees (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always the chance that NSA has Google employees on its payroll that are tasked with secretly handing off data. They could even be there under a verbal handshake agreement with Google management, giving Google plausible deniability in case they are ever discovered: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that data gathering is going on in here!"
Then everyone is happy - the NSA gets their data, and Google can legitimately say that "they" are not handing over data to the NSA.
And since secret FISA orders can apparently compel anyone to do just about anything and keep it a secret, there's nothing illegal about it.
look at the wording carefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
To anyone complaining about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.
Re:Rogue employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly but I have to think at least some of these billionaires would say hold on, and buy a half hour block of TV that evening to have a chat with America.
"Sergey and Larry, we know the Justice department has been hard on your company, and we've heard that they are going to open a lot more probes into your business practices, you'll be deposed so many times that you may as well move to Washington DC. I think we could make things better for you if you'll just agree to let us put a few of our employees in your datacenters....as a token showing of good faith, we're giving you use of NASA's runway at Moffett Field for your little 767 jet"
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are willing to do things like define all military age males as militants [salon.com] to avoid admitting to civilian casualties from drone attacks you know they don't have a problem redefining pretty much any word in order to avoid being held accountable to the people.
Really going on? Let me spell it out for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case - Just straight up fuck the government. No sane reading of the rights guaranteed us by the constitution allows for such a tortured interpretation. And I don't care how you use it Barry O - I care that you collect it in the first place. The constitution doesn't say "we can stop by and take a look around your place as long as we don't press charges", it says "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". Doesn't take a legal scholar to parse that, you worthless floaters atop the DC sewers!
/ For those who would inevitably bring up the 3rd amendment - We lost that one over a century ago - Thanks, Mr. Lincoln! They just haven't had a reason to casually disregard it in the past century, but make no mistake, they would (again) in a heartbeat.
Re:Really going on? Let me spell it out for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
So...what you're saying, is that this government is effectively an anti-US government?
Why so surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always assumed anything I've posted, including E-mail or said is public knowledge.
Way back when... The usenet group knew or took for granted that every message
went through NSA, at the time is was no big deal just be a backbone and filter for words
or phrases. The practice was referred to as the eight words, while I forget them, one or more of the
eight words were sure to get your post sidelined and read.
As for back doors these have been in place for a long time, Microsoft's Firewall will
allow trusted parties to slip right through. There was a time these were talked about
in the open.
ToS and privacy policies tell you what information is being collected and what it's used
for, Angry birds has one line that says any amount of your data will "go overseas".
The game appropriately named "Jewel link!" one of many free games put out by Ezjoy Network
has no ToS or privacy policy and requires every permission Android has. Ezjoy Network can make
a copy of your entire system if they want as they've promised nothing, which you accepted when installed.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ezjoynetwork.jewelslink&feature=search_result [google.com]
paste m.ezjoygame.com into google and watch what happens. "You get a Google Instant is unavailable. Press Enter to search"
message but you can learn more here: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/186645?form=bb&hl=en [google.com]
Google isn't all the Innocent, recently Google Play restricted any program that interferes with
the data capture of another program, blocking programs like Adaway, or any number of programs
that blocked sites (a HOSTS file) or change permissions.
Why so surprised?
Re:Guility motherfucker! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitions. (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a little more to it than that. It actually says they define all military age males in a strike zone as militants, which is a little bit different.
After all, the particular event that inspired this story took place on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. If you were a "military age male" on the Afghani/Pakistan border and were NOT a militant, wouldn't you get the fuck out of there?
It's not like when the US bombed Dresden, or the Germans bombed London during WWII, they went to any great pains to make sure their bombs only hit uniformed members of the military.
Yes, it's very brutal, but I still think it's too early to tell whether the drone strikes are a policy that works. If you make it so nobody wants to be anywhere near the militants unless they are fighting alongside them, then it will be very easy to tell who is a militant and who is not.
Personally, I think the whole thing is barbaric and unnecessary and we shouldn't be doing it. At all. It's immoral. But whether or not it minimizes civilian casualties compared to carpet-bombing followed by an all-out invasion still remains to be determined.
Re:look at the wording carefully (Score:2, Insightful)
A spinal tap on the internet backbone in the right strategic places will give then everything they want. There will be rooms in exchanges.
Secondly, they are bugging Judges and Congressmen, that information will swept up for analysis. Whether they get up to Hoover/Bush Senior like tactics, select targeting to apply the blowtorch on cantankerous objectors - who knows.
The most dangerous terrorist attacks (if any) will come from domestic citizens. They are not going to let on if their only breakthrough came from a domestic contact. Justice would be equally criminal for letting a US citizen do something bad if they knew about it.
There is reason to believe domestic drug dealers have suffered as a result.
They won't come out and say "Yes, we have been breaking the law all along, but we feel good about it" . AG's are not very smart - who cares if they do an 'East Germany' on everyone.
So everyone, stop donating money to political parties. Stop using phone and computer to broadcast your life, and go out to the park to discuss business
Re:Rogue employees (Score:5, Insightful)
You want tin foil? How's this:
Go read James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". Near the end, he mentions the things that the NSA needs to get right in order to stay ahead in the intelligence business:
Distributed data so that the loss of one data center doesn't impact data
Ability to import and index a massive amount of information continuously (while keeping it available)
Accurate speech to text
Accurate language translation
Ability to search massive amounts of data very quickly, ranking results
Search through different media formats (video, audio, text, etc.)
Now go look at what Google is good at and known for.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
"The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat"
Yet more evidence that the terrorists have won. We have here yet another citizen who believes that terrorism is a major problem. Each and every day, more Americans die in automobile accidents, than the terrorists have managed to kill since 9/11/01. Yet, "we're dog meat" because of terrorists.
Far to few Americans have any balls these days. Is it something in the diet? To many drugs? To much brain washing? What is it that causes Americans to whine like whipped dogs? "we're dog meat".
On the day of the Boston Marathon bombings, I saw a lot of people who have a bit of fortitude running TOWARD the explosions, to care for their fellow citizens. People with big brass balls, who understood that something bad had happened, and decided that they should disregard the potential for further explosions. Most of the severely injured have survived because all those people ran toward the disaster, and not away from it. The crowd at the marathon bombing made me proud.
This "we're dog meat" shit is embarrassing as all hell. I can see why he posted as AC.
If this is what the government is doing... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is what the government is doing to protect me, I don't want to be protected anymore. I'll take my own chances.
I would rather be dead to a terrorist bomb than live in 1984.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me turn that on your head. If you had been living in your family home for all your life and a bunch of hoodlums came into your neighborhood and started shooting up the place, would you A. leave, or B. stay to spite them? Many people would choose A., but many would choose B.
Wrong. You don't make it so nobody wants to be anywhere near the militants. You teach the families of the innocent victims to hate America and Americans for assuming guilt by proximity. There's a difference. It is policies like these that fuel terrorism and anti-American sentiment around the globe.
Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I've always thought Lauren Weinstein was an idiot, and now it's been confirmed. Google doesn't have to give the NSA access, the NSA will just take it. You're a moron if you think there's anything other than the constitution stopping the feds from doing whatever the hell they want. They have more money than any other organization on earth by several orders of magnitude. If the government does not respect the constitution in one way, why would they respect it in any other? If they are already packet capturing all of our traffic, is steeling API access to Googles databases any worse? As far as technical ability goes, all they would have had to do is bribe a couple of high level, psychologically profiled DBAs with talk of patriotism or telling their wives about their boyfriends and they're in.
If the federal government thinks it can fire a hellfire missile from a drone and kill a US citizen without evidence, trial or judicial oversight, then reading our email is a joke to them. It's an easy thing to do, they think they are righteous in their attempts and they have endless resources... OF COURSE THEY'RE DOING IT. The idea that Larry Page would have any fucking clue is a joke. "yes, lets makes sure some celebrities know about our evil plan!"
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's very brutal, but I still think it's too early to tell whether the drone strikes are a policy that works
When we have technology capable of putting a missile through an attic window, or down a ventilation shaft, the government does have an obligation to limit civilian casualties. This isn't like Dresden, or London during WWII, when bombs were more or less flung out the back door and they hit where they hit... sometimes miles off target. Thus the reason for carpet bombing in the first place -- there was no accuracy: It was Angry Birds with kilotons of ordinance.
But ignoring the technological side of things, thousands (yes, thousands) of years of military history has shown that the key to winning any war is not in having superior technology or weapons, but in winning the hearts and minds of the people. Sun Tzu wrote about this back when the state of the art was long spears and loud screams, and not a damn thing has changed. But you know, fuck Tzu, maybe you need something a little more modern: How about the British/American war of independence? The greatest navy on the planet, best trained military at the time, got its ass handed to it by some upstart guy named Washington whose troops crossed the Potamac river on Christmas while starving to the point they had been eating their own boots only a few days prior. How'd that happen? "SOONER", you say? Okay, the Vietnam war. Now we're the greatest military force on the planet. We get our asses handed to us by a bunch of tunnel-dwelling communists who largely rely on traps made out of sharpened bamboo and guns that are 40 years old. SOONER! Okay, the war in Iraq. Which one? All of them.
So please, don't even try taking the position that making our ambassadors to the world a predator drone is going to end anything but very, very badly for us. Sun Tzu, were he alive right now, would be posting Picard facepalm pics as a reaction to just about every strategic initiative our government has undertaken in the past twenty years. To him, we're push-overs. We are not a threat... all the nukes in the world can't change the simple fact that where we go, we're resented. And it'll be the death of us, perhaps quite literally.
The fight for democracy cannot be won by any technology we now possess. Not drones, not nukes, none of it. There is but one weapon to assure us of victory: People.
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Insightful)
that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree.
For it is the doom of men that they forget. -- Merlin, Excalibur [imdb.com]
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. [gpo.gov]
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
By their deeds you shall know them.
1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa [pbs.org] - The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi
1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya [nytimes.com]
2000 Photo: USS Cole [washingtonpost.com] - Video: 2000: USS Cole Attack [cbsnews.com] in Yemen
2001 9-11 [telegraph.co.uk]
2002 Bali terror attack [bbc.co.uk]
2004 Madrid train attacks [bbc.co.uk]
2005 London 7/7 Terrorist Attacks [www.bl.uk]
2009 Now classified as "workplace violence" - Nidal Hasan Admitted Jihadist Motive, Ft. Hood Victims’ Attorneys Say [go.com]
2013 Boston Marathon Bombing [cbsnews.com]
Note that this is only a snapshot of attacks, and doesn't include the many attacks that occurred in the Middle East (except the Cole). It also doesn't include the many plots disrupted by the security services, or cancelled by the terrorists planning them. It doesn't include the many arrests for terrorism related activity, but snapshot of that over a short period of time is below:
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012 [fbi.gov]
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
"The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat"
Yet more evidence that the terrorists have won. ... This "we're dog meat" shit is embarrassing as all hell.
It helps if you put "dog meat" in its original context.
The FBI, NSA, CIA are just too stupid, moronic, retarded to actually work within the Constitution of the United States of America and therefore have to violate it in order to do - attempt - their job. If they were truly smart, they could work within the confines of the Constitution. But they can't - they are stupid. The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat because our security services are stupid. Security services have to eliminate basic freedoms to achieve their goals; which means they are morons.
In which case it pretty obvious that he's complaining about the laziness and incompetence of our "security" services, not hiding under a table from the terrorists.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
In context, or out, AC has complained about the situation surrounding terrorism, characterized our own people as incompetent, and characterized the terrorists as "smart". He has concluded that "we are dog meat".
I insist that the terrorists aren't all that smart, and that despite our incompetent leaders, we, individual Americans, can make all the difference in the world.
Further, I propose that the FBI, NSA, etc aren't trying to get around the Constitution because they are stupid. In reality, they are typical organizations, which seek to expand their authority, their budgets, their manpower and their influence. Some pretty smart people in each of these organizations spend a lot of time figuring out ways to accomplish these goals. Is it stupid to try to acquire more power? I would say, "No, it is not."
It's dishonest, it's overbearing, it's dirty - but it's not stupid.
Re:Definitions. (Score:3, Insightful)
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
I'm pretty sure they already hate America. Maybe for good reason, but that's a matter of perspective.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Not stupid?
Ultimately, the backlash isn't going to be pretty. These are people sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but FISA has given them their grip, and the opaque nature of FISA courts means that they're the black hand of government.
The fear-based culture after 9/11 gave rise to lots of brutish and boorish legislation. Freedom Fries. We were fighting a small, even handful of disorganized terrorists. Now, the backlash has caused armies of dedicated fighters, not they're that smart.
So what happens? You dragnet most of the communications infrastructure of the USA, and call that a win. A win? It's enormously costly both in terms of money spent, but also the feeling that we don't trust our own government, and we've reduced the currency of fighting for ideals, rather than for oil, the crooks on K Street.
Stupid? Yes. It's debased the level of trust, and created ostensible enemies of all us, watching all of us. Where is there an ounce of warmth, trust, and liberty in sifting through 10^7 conversations, just to find a nugget or two?
Re:Definitions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Definitions. (Score:3, Insightful)
.And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Wow. So now the people fighting against the people we are ostensibly fighting are also legitimate targets. I thought the administration's redefinition of militant was entirely bogus, but you've taken it a level I never would have even conceived of.
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Insightful)
How does Sun Tzu suggest winning the hearts and minds of people whose devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed?
I hope DARPA is working on an anti-religious extremism technology. And I hope it gets used domestically too.
Re:Definitions. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet more evidence that the terrorists have won.
I'm tired of hearing people say, "the terrorists have won" when the government infringes on our freedom, because it's wildly inaccurate. Terrorists win when their tactics cause outcomes that meet their objectives. Terrorists literally could not care less whether Americans are oppressed by their own government. Their objectives are things like, getting the USA out of the middle east, destroying Israel, etc. What we do in our own country really isn't on their radar, except for American terrorists, who are very few and very low profile and really nobody is worried about them much.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you could manuever a sniper into a position to shoot him. Or fastrope some riflemen from a helicopter to shoot and/or beat him senseless.
The problem with solutions like that, though, is they don't do any good helping to justify why you need billion-dollar weapon systems to fight a bunch of dirt farmers with Kalashnikovs and RPGs but no planes, helicopters, armor, or anti-aircraft capability to speak of.
Re:Morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting "feel good" argument, but lacking in substance. We have a Government that paid manufacturing companies money to move jobs overseas. We have a Government that created NAFTA without the concern for the very obvious problems this would cause for Americans. We have a current Government trying to expand NAFTA to numerous Pacific countries, again without care for Americans. We have a Government spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we simply do not have buying surveillance, guns, ammunition, and armored vehicles for use within the US Borders (I.E. DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA expansion, not Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force). You have a Government spending millions of dollars advertising, telling people how bad Guns are and trying with all their might to convince people that they don't need to protect themselves.
Quite frankly, if you are not scared at this point you need to wake up.
Notice I didn't even touch on things we know that some may consider "Conspiracy Theory".
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Only if your intent was to mislead spectators of this debate. Since clearly these "militants" would actually be fighting _against_ the subset of "militants" that the U.S. forces were fighting against.
So for the purposes of this discussion, *NO*, the people in group B would not be called "militants" because at least superficially, they are specifically the kind of resident native that our government at least claims to be interested in protecting, not executing.
Or perhaps I'm too intoxicated to be trying to parse your sentence. But the general idea is that there are some "militants" in foreign countries whose goal is to slaughter as many civilian US citizens as possible. And there are some "militants" whose goal is stay in their home and raise their families, and wish to harm no US citizen blindly (now, they may have a personal beef with somebody, but they aren't out to kill citizens due to their specific citizenship). And from where I'm standing, it seems like your comment was meant to somehow confuse the two groups. Probably your just a semantic troll. But we are talking about killing people, via remote control, who bore the unfortune of having parents who fucked in a part of the world that decades later happened to become very dangerous for people that stubbornly just want to live in the land they were born in. And the more of those we kill, and literally propogandistically write off as "militants", the more dozens of people will fantasize about suicide missions killing the appeasing populace of the country that accidentally droned their family member to bits, for being the wrong gender, and age, and skin color, in the wrong geographic region that happened to be their homeland, at the wrong time. Or so it seems to me.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
The word militant has traditionally meant that the person is part of an organized resistance, not merely stuck in the combat area when the shit hit the fan. We call those people victims or refugees depending on whether they stay or leave.
I'm pretty sure they already hate America. Maybe for good reason, but that's a matter of perspective.
Most of the world hates America, and they have damn good reasons for doing so that aren't about perspective. America has given up caring about collateral damage. Our international ambassador of peace is the Predator drone. "Bringing democracy" has become synonymous with "They're sending in tanks and missiles and shit again." We've unilaterally withdrawn from several key Geneva conventions, we're engaging in mass acts of torture of areas we occupy...
I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut what religion you are... if some assholes are rolling tanks down your street, dropping bombs on your neighbors, and shooting friends and family... they are not liberating you, it's not democracy, and you got every reason and right to kick the mother fuckers right in the teeth. And I say that as an American of no particular religion. My home is my castle. The founding fathers started on about that whole business, and I think they might have been onto something there.
We're going about things all wrong. People don't just hate America, America hates itself. It's economically depressed, militarily suicidal... and frankly, if America was my aunt, I'd be asking the state to have them committed post-haste, because they're fucking up every good thing that life ever gave them while screaming "I'm sane! No really! I'm the sanest one here!"
We're going about this whole warfare thing all wrong. Congress, please stop sending us to po-dunk desert countries and pissing off the locals... it's not helping us, and it's not helping them. The only people it's helping are the defense industry, which has massive (and now unlimited!) funds going towards our elected officials, which in turn are inking orders for new tanks That the entire joint chiefs of staff said we don't need, we have no possible need for, in fact, if you give them to us we're just going to park them out in the Nevada desert with the 50,000 other tanks that are sitting out there rusting... that we also don't need, from the last time we said we don't need any more fucking tanks... I mean, guys... when your own military is saying "No thanks, we're full" and we're force feeding them more equipment...
Sit back and take the fucking hint, man. We are seriously messed in the head as a country.
Re:Definitions. (Score:1, Insightful)
None said they stayed to fight.
Maybe they just have families to take responsibilities of.
Maybe not everybody can just snap fingers and move away from their only home and the only place they have known for all their lives.
Or maybe you are just creating militants where there were none.
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Insightful)
How does Sun Tzu suggest winning the hearts and minds of people whose devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed?
That sounds like the war propaganda handbook list of accusations against the enemy, No. 4. Their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed. That's what the Protestants said about the Catholics, the French about the Germans, the Germans about the French, what we said about the Japanese, the Russians, and all our enemies. Now we're up to the Arabs.
And pray tell me how you know that their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed? Did you hear that when you visited your local mosque? Did you read it in the Koran? Or did you get it from the propaganda tanks like MEMRI and CAMERA?
Re:Morons (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm tired of hearing people say, "the terrorists have won" when the government infringes on our freedom, because it's wildly inaccurate. Terrorists win when their tactics cause outcomes that meet their objectives. Terrorists literally could not care less whether Americans are oppressed by their own government.
With these terrorists that may be true, maybe. But, as an example, the RAF in Germany in the 1970s considered the increase in surveilance and oppression that resulted from their actions to be a win. As it revealed to the general public the true nature and wishes of their government (as they believed them to be).
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Once they return to their positions of wealth and privilege in civilian life, and their hand-picked successors assume their places in the halls of power, you mean?
Oh, yeah, I'm sure that they're *very* worried about what happens then.
Re:Microsoft Hired People To Make Positive Comment (Score:4, Insightful)
This is important.
To 14-year-olds everywhere!
Very true. I think it should be important to anyone who's concerned about the future of computing and the future generally, but a 14 year old is just starting their life. They'll have a lot longer to look forward to than the old, jaded people who're running Microsoft and Prism.
If I was 14 again, I'd sure as hell be hunting around frantically looking for a way out of this cage. And I'd sure as hell not be using any Microsoft products.
Re:Other people's back door maybe? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the government tells me about the targets of their surveillance does not matter. They are lying anyway (see also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order [guardian.co.uk]).
What matters is that they can get at my data easily enough for routine surveillance even when I'm not in their jurisdiction, and that such data might be used against me. Considering that, I'm actually less worried about spying by a government that is not allied with my own. Because the non-allies are unlikely to share the data with my government.