NSA Prism program - its watching you
Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-08/tech-giants-condemn-online-spying/4741846 And many others. In Summary, the NSA has apparently been running a program called Prism which taps into the central servers of many technology companies including Google, Facebook, Apple, AOL, Skype, PalTalk and YouTube. Each of these companies have issued statements denying any knowledge of such a program. The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says. I hope you have all been behaving yourself. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/6/6/1370557489060/Prism-008.jpg All of this is not so distant from the older project echelon that has been running since the 60's from what I can see. Its just the latest and greatest way of keeping all you bad people under control. |
02:04pm 08/06/13 Permalink
But if I'm not doing anything wrong then surely I have nothing to worry about???///
In all seriousness though I'd like to know exactly what level of cooperation facebook/google lend to the government. Yes they have issued statements denying knowledge of the program but surely that's what they'd be saying regardless. They seem to be making a lot of money and I know I have never clicked one of the ads on google and facebook :P |
02:07pm 08/06/13 Permalink
02:29pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Google have officially denied these reports As I said in the OP, they all have Trog, but here we are with this NSA report floating around saying otherwise. It will be interesting to see how this plays out given its not April 1. |
02:37pm 08/06/13 Permalink
As I said in the OP, they all have Trog, but here we are with this NSA report floating around saying otherwise. It will be interesting to see how this plays out given its not April 1.yes, but the Google statement says that they have no access to the system, not just that they're not participating in the system, and (edit) I figure it's more useful to read stuff straight from the horse's mouth |
02:40pm 08/06/13 Permalink
That they know of !? Did any of the telco's know that every phone call, telex and fax transmission since the 60's was washed via Project Echelon? I guess that was different though as it didn't always require core access (but did in none satellite intercepts). Anyway, its fascinating stuff and I for one will be interested in how this plays out.
|
02:48pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Google is a serial offender at turning people in to their Governments.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/23/two-out-of-three-cases-where-google-hands-government-user-data-dont-involve-a-warrant/ Its not hard to believe this story is true. The Guardian though lefty leaning is credible source and is most likely sitting on even more explosive stuff. What might that be ? Still think Tyranny isn't possible ? |
03:10pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Google is a serial offender at turning people in to their Governments.Did you read more than the headline of that article? Google's track record at handing over data is actually pretty good, and they are extremely good at making sure people know (where possible) what data is being handed over and how and under what circumstances. |
03:19pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Google is a serial offender at turning people in to their Governments.Did you read more than the headline of that article? That they know of !? Did any of the telco's know that every phone call, telex and fax transmission since the 60's was washed via Project Echelon? I guess that was different though as it didn't always require core access (but did in none satellite intercepts). Anyway, its fascinating stuff and I for one will be interested in how this plays out.ok but can you fix the subject typo?!@# |
03:19pm 08/06/13 Permalink
03:23pm 08/06/13 Permalink
But if I'm not doing anything wrong then surely I have nothing to worry about???/// this attitude is unironically really common and that's the most f***ed up thing. |
03:57pm 08/06/13 Permalink
good time to bring up the newest spying device that everyone will buy willingly? xbox one. lolz
edit: lol, good timing. "enemy of the state" movie is on tonight I see. |
04:54pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program: The New York Times recons firms built secure channels to speed up delivery of demanded data, but that all such demands are still individually reviewed and then accepted or challenged.
The Washington Post is backing down on the 'direct access' claims according to BusinessInsider: The Washington Post Has Now Hedged Its Stunning Claim About Google, Facebook, Etc, Giving Government Direct Access To Their Servers And as Lauren Weinstein said, "I am extremely irritated and saddened by people suggesting that Page and Drummond are lying about Google not providing data back doors to the government. These are two honest and decent individuals. And keep something in mind -- the government can use legal means to try force you to be silent about a matter, but they can't force you to lie, unless they're resorting to waterboarding and shock collars for Internet executives." |
05:06pm 08/06/13 Permalink
The Government would never do something like this.
|
05:23pm 08/06/13 Permalink
the government can use legal means to try force you to be silent about a matter, but they can't force you to lieNo but an individual can force themselves to lie if they think it'll help their business survive. |
05:32pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Google (and almost all the other big tech companies named) have denied giving 'direct access' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29#Response_from_companies).
So no, they might not have given direct access to their own machines. But the companies might've given the information those machines collect to the NSA. |
07:51pm 08/06/13 Permalink
I reckon google handing over data to the NSA would still count as giving them direct access.
The statement read in part, "The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies."[26] He went on to say, "Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States."[26] Clapper concluded his statement by stating "The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans."[26] On March 12, 2013, Clapper had told the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the NSA does "not wittingly" collect any type of data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.[27]Well isn't that just a giant f*** you to the rest of the world. |
09:26pm 08/06/13 Permalink
I reckon google handing over data to the NSA would still count as giving them direct access. When they say the NSA doesn't have direct access they're talking about direct access to the Google servers, not direct access to information they ask for from Google. All the companies are denying is that the NSA can't just access their servers whenever they like and look at whatever they want. What the companies do willingly and/or are forced to do legally is another matter entirely. Edit: Of all the big tech companies, however, I definitely feel more safe about my information in Google's hands compared to the likes of Microsoft, Apple or Facebook (mainly thanks to Google's willing transparency of data stored about you and of their compliance with legal requests). |
10:23pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Yeah and if they were trying to be slippery about it and claim innocence by saying they don't give the NSA access to their servers however on the other hand they were handing data over physically to them they'd be c****. But going by everything they've said I doubt they'd do that unless they had something to gain and the only thing they'd have to gain is money. If there is no money then it would have to be the US hacking into their servers which would surely pose a legal minefield. Where's the statement from google condemning their actions if this is the case?
|
10:29pm 08/06/13 Permalink
Not to be an anti-conspiracy conspiracy nutter but if you don't want other people to see what you're doing, don't use the internet to do it? Like those people who whinge about photos being leaked, plans to certain secret things (new games, buildings, airplanes, whatever). If you want it to be totally secure then don't connect it to the internet.
I don't like the idea of being spied on but I do like the idea that if I am being spied on, so are the people who are up to mischief (I hope) and they might just be stopped from their mischief (with any luck). |
10:39pm 08/06/13 Permalink
i thought this was common knowledge since the US gov only lets its citizens use a certain level of encryption - one they can already break..
|
01:30am 09/06/13 Permalink
Did we honestly expect the Government wasn't recording our data and telephone conversations, this isn't really a surprise.
NSA probably has my porn stash stored on their cloud. |
08:58am 09/06/13 Permalink
i thought this was common knowledge since the US gov only lets its citizens use a certain level of encryption - one they can already break..wtf, where did you hear this one?! I'd like to go there to read more hilarious comments |
10:49am 09/06/13 Permalink
wtf, where did you hear this one?! I'd like to go there to read more hilarious comments i remember back in nt4 days, you couldnt download the 128bit encryption pack. but yes, pretty funny. |
10:58am 09/06/13 Permalink
i remember back in nt4 days, you couldnt download the 128bit encryption pack. but yes, pretty funny. I think I remember that Did we honestly expect the Government wasn't recording our data and telephone conversations, this isn't really a surprise.NSA probably has my porn stash stored on their cloud. well at least if your hard drive crashes you can always just ask them for a copy :p |
11:17am 09/06/13 Permalink
yeah it was back in the old days.. but yes.. 128 was the norm then the US gov allowed its citizens to use 256 bit
i remember some hooha when an aussie bloke made 4000 bit encryption and the US feds were going crazy |
05:54pm 09/06/13 Permalink
what do you do for understanding
in a multicultural sociecty when an L word bastard can be liked for 'serves you right America' for what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary? sometimes, f*** democracy. |
06:06pm 09/06/13 Permalink
The Washington Post is backing down on the 'direct access' claims according to BusinessInsider: The Washington Post Has Now Hedged Its Stunning Claim About Google, Facebook, Etc, Giving Government Direct Access To Their Servers I guess they didn't want to find themselves facing rape charges out of nowhere.. I mean the American government would never do something like that.... oh wait.. |
06:13pm 09/06/13 Permalink
Nt4 was 128 because that was all an american company could EXPORT.
I know it is hard to remember, but in the context of american security you are a foreigner There's an "uproar" in america because this is domestic surveillance. Your average american would not doubt expect that the NSA and CIA have full access to all of your information stored with an American company |
06:45pm 09/06/13 Permalink
08:26am 10/06/13 Permalink
The whistle blower has now come out publicly as a 29 year old bloke who has (in the last couple weeks) relocated to Hong Kong:
"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."He sounds pretty dreamy on paper. |
09:56am 10/06/13 Permalink
doesn't he know that batman can still get him even if he is hold up in hong kong
|
10:15am 10/06/13 Permalink
If you are wondering what you can do about all this, you should immediately:
1) Become an EFA member. Electronic Frontiers Australia is Australia's foremost organisation fighting for your digital civil liberties. There are three levels of membership - $70/yr is the most common but there's a $25/yr for students and a life membership option for $350. The EFA will fight for your rights mostly in Australia - how much different in cases like this particular one is fuzzy because ultimately it depends on how much pressure they can apply to Australian politicians, and then how those politicians react bearing in mind the strong ties we have in trade agreements with the USA. 2) Become an EFF member. The Electronic Frontiers Foundation is the USs foremost organisation (and because of that, in many ways it is the most important one in the world).. They have a wide range of membership options AND you get a cool sticker pack or hat or shirt! The EFF are awesome and put a lot of pressure on the US government, including representing people in important digital rights cases and applying a lot of pressure and scrutiny to the practices of large corporates like Google and Facebook, particularly around areas like privacy. Please please please throw some money their way! Check out their respective news pages to see the sorts of things they're championing. |
10:47am 10/06/13 Permalink
the Lateline interview where Assange mentioned his perspective on Bob Carr's sit in spy on the Manning trial was an interesting insight, with the news on the wires about diplomatic cutbacks on whatever legal rights you have as a citizen that you can't expect to be extended to your ciscumstance say if you're travelling
|
12:27am 11/06/13 Permalink
02:09pm 11/06/13 Permalink
I'm not surprised to see this coming out too: http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/security-it/federal-police-spying-on-phone-and-internet-records-20130610-2o093.html
Full disclosure - I've only read the first paragraph. |
03:30pm 11/06/13 Permalink
They probably just use the information to travel back in time to stop bad s*** from happening.
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/41573_59916282250_6626_n.jpg Imagine if they hadn't stepped in, how much worse the Boston Bombings would have been. |
03:35pm 11/06/13 Permalink
Of course, the guy who leaked the information is now currently missing after leaving his hotel. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22850901
|
08:12pm 11/06/13 Permalink
An ex-CIA employee who leaked details of US top-secret phone and internet surveillance has disappeared from his hotel in Hong Kong. Ah the good old media, jumping on any chance to sensationalise. I think "disappeared from his hotel" is a little more evocative than it needs to be when the truth is that he simply checked out of the hotel and didn't tell anyone where he was going. |
08:41pm 11/06/13 Permalink
Killing him would suggest he was correct.
Id also suspect he has a couple of Aces in the hole, should something 'unexpected' happen. As he said, he could get information on anyone. Maybe he has. |
08:43pm 11/06/13 Permalink
A long, but good read for those of whom haven't already read it:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ |
10:50pm 11/06/13 Permalink
i am not concerned about my dataz being spied on at all.
i would like to think if someone was spying on me, they were appreciating the effort i put into my content. |
07:38am 12/06/13 Permalink
11:00am 12/06/13 Permalink
Apparently Boeing are involved ... and Shad works for Boeing, there for Shad knows what porn you have been downloading!
|
11:43am 12/06/13 Permalink
Why Privacy matters
The nothing-to-hide argument is everywhere. In Britain, for example, the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television. In a campaign slogan for the program, the government declares: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Variations of nothing-to-hide arguments frequently appear in blogs, letters to the editor, television news interviews, and other forums. One blogger in the United States, in reference to profiling people for national-security purposes, declares: "I don't mind people wanting to find out things about me, I've got nothing to hide! Which is why I support [the government's] efforts to find terrorists by monitoring our phone calls!" The argument is not of recent vintage. its long but well worth reading. |
12:04pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Apparently Boeing are involved ... and Shad works for Boeing, there for Shad knows what porn you have been downloading! I am disgusted by all of you. The RBJ videos were especially harrowing. |
01:21pm 12/06/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: citation needed |
11:36pm 14/06/13 Permalink
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." While I agree, it's also frightening to think that one day you might jokingly post a certain phrase or word (I don't know what it might be, I'm not just avoiding saying anything in particular) and that might then cause them to go back over your entire history and find that one day, 15 years ago, you spoke to someone in a bar who is now a known terrorist. Congratulations John Citizen, you're now on the suspected terrorist watch list and will be fisted by the airport security, have your entire life put into question every time you go for a job interview and good luck if you have aspirations of working in government or anywhere that might handle sensitive data. All because you discussed a sports outcome with some random guy in a bar 15 years ago. That's the part that seriously terrifies me. It's not what they're currently looking at, it's what random links might they infer from what, at the time, were innocent remarks, gestures or occurrences? also, does Julian Assorange look like John Inman to anyone else? Mr Humphries, are you free? http://i.imgur.com/E4bMdKP.jpg |
11:43pm 14/06/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: quotes deleted post |
12:39am 15/06/13 Permalink
Yeah, the UK has said he'll likely be refused entry to the country, not arrested.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/uk-tells-international-airlines-it-doesnt-want-edward-snowde I wonder why they've done this, so they don't have another Assange situation? |
01:00am 15/06/13 Permalink
so they don't have another Assange situation Maybe, Foreign Secretary William Hague repeatedly refused to comment on the leaks. The Gaurdian might still have some evidence that might involve Britain. Perhaps that's why he wanted to contact a British Journalist/Paper. I was reading somewhere that The NSA were looking for him a few days before the story broke. Maybe he found something really big ? |
02:14am 15/06/13 Permalink
