How the NSA collects everything you do on the internet

[Thanas]

Lengthy, well sourced article.

Thanks, Obama.

[TheHammer]

The thing that is constantly overlooked is that there is a big difference between having a technical capability to do something, and actually doing it. By neccessity, a technical analyst needs to have the power to access a lot of data. The "keys to the kingdom" so to speak aren't abused because there are consequences to abuse. The final paragraph of the article, the NSA's response, essentially lays that out.

When a person in a technical position says "I could, without a warrant, search for anyone including Federal judges or the President" it's essentially ignoring the fact that it is illegal and something they would be suffer severe punitive measures for doing. It would sort of be akin to a Police officer saying "If I want, I could pull out my gun and shoot people at random" as though he would be free to get away with it.

I think the big thing missing in all of this, is an example where this technical capability abused, or how it is dealt with when such a situation arises. I'd like to see at least one example of an "average joe" whose information was improperly obtained via one of these programs.

[Thanas]

You mean, the entire Prism scandal wasn't enough for you?

[General Zod]

The thing that is constantly overlooked is that there is a big difference between having a technical capability to do something, and actually doing it. By neccessity, a technical analyst needs to have the power to access a lot of data. The "keys to the kingdom" so to speak aren't abused because there are consequences to abuse. The final paragraph of the article, the NSA's response, essentially lays that out.

When a person in a technical position says "I could, without a warrant, search for anyone including Federal judges or the President" it's essentially ignoring the fact that it is illegal and something they would be suffer severe punitive measures for doing. It would sort of be akin to a Police officer saying "If I want, I could pull out my gun and shoot people at random" as though he would be free to get away with it.

I think the big thing missing in all of this, is an example where this technical capability abused, or how it is dealt with when such a situation arises. I'd like to see at least one example of an "average joe" whose information was improperly obtained via one of these programs.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. With police officers, there's typically a lot of public records about the abuse occurring and a great deal of oversight. With something like this? Would the public ever know an abuse occurred if there was one? There's really no oversight or accountability here at all.

[TheHammer]

You mean, the entire Prism scandal wasn't enough for you?

Again, PRISM describes a technical capability. Where is the abuse? The information obtained by PRISM is already in the hands of google, facebook, et al. This Onion article probably best illustrates how I feel about PRISM:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-m ... -co,32783/

I don't think that's a very good analogy. With police officers, there's typically a lot of public records about the abuse occurring and a great deal of oversight. With something like this? Would the public ever know an abuse occurred if there was one? There's really no oversight or accountability here at all.

The key point was that just because someone could technically do something, doesn't mean that there is no accountability for it after the fact. As the article notes, there is auditing of the analysts as a deterrent to them "going rougue". If your concern is that this program would be abused in an "official" capacity, I think history has shown that such a thing almost certainly will be leaked at some point.

Leaks such as the one Snowden did just seem to whip up anti-government fears without actually having anything to substantiate them. The headlines are the "The Government has the CAPABILITY to do xyz with your online date" is no more terrifying to me than the idea that they could obliterate my house in a drone strike, even though they could technically do so.

[General Zod]

The key point was that just because someone could technically do something, doesn't mean that there is no accountability for it after the fact. As the article notes, there is auditing of the analysts as a deterrent to them "going rougue". If your concern is that this program would be abused in an "official" capacity, I think history has shown that such a thing almost certainly will be leaked at some point.

No, my concern is that internal accountability isn't good enough to deter abuse. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the military's problem with rape and sexual assault. Sometimes it gets aired out in the public but because accountability is done internally the offender manages to get off with a slap on the wrist.

[TheHammer]

The key point was that just because someone could technically do something, doesn't mean that there is no accountability for it after the fact. As the article notes, there is auditing of the analysts as a deterrent to them "going rougue". If your concern is that this program would be abused in an "official" capacity, I think history has shown that such a thing almost certainly will be leaked at some point.

No, my concern is that internal accountability isn't good enough to deter abuse. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the military's problem with rape and sexual assault. Sometimes it gets aired out in the public but because accountability is done internally the offender manages to get off with a slap on the wrist.

Given the spotlight on the program, one would expect that the administration would come down extremely hard on an analyst who abused their power. They almost certainly go through regular mandatory training on this point.

[General Zod]

Given the spotlight on the program, one would expect that the administration would come down extremely hard on an analyst who abused their power. They almost certainly go through regular mandatory training on this point.

What sort of internal checks and balances could be used to ensure their power isn't being abused given the sheer amount of compartmentalization in programs like these?

[TheHammer]

Given the spotlight on the program, one would expect that the administration would come down extremely hard on an analyst who abused their power. They almost certainly go through regular mandatory training on this point.

What sort of internal checks and balances could be used to ensure their power isn't being abused given the sheer amount of compartmentalization in programs like these?

Regular auditing, combined with holding managers accountable for the actions of their employees would seem, in my opinion, to be effective. This isn't a situation where you would neccessarily need to "have cause" in order to review an analyst's actions.

[General Zod]

Regular auditing, combined with holding managers accountable for the actions of their employees would seem, in my opinion, to be effective.

Is there any evidence that this actually works instead of making managers more likely to help cover their employees' asses?

[Formless]

"Internal Accountability" is an oxymoron anyway. The whole point of accountability is that you are being held responsible for your actions to the people you hold power over. Keeping it internal means that, even if you are in any way being held responsible (which is dubious and impossible to prove to outsiders), you are being held responsible to your boss. Who is your boss (A.K.A. the Administration itself) accountable to? Anyone? No one? The Invisible Sky Pixy? There is no transparency, which is the real problem certain people would rather gloss over.

[TheHammer]

Regular auditing, combined with holding managers accountable for the actions of their employees would seem, in my opinion, to be effective.

Is there any evidence that this actually works instead of making managers more likely to help cover their employees' asses

There is no incentive to cover their employee's asses. Is it possible a manager and an analyst would do this? Certainly, but if found out they both would take the fall, rather than just the analyst.

To be clear, I don't mean that if a manager finds an employee abusing his authority that he is held responsible. Rather he is held accountable for holding the employee accountable. If you aren't doing the regular audits, or are allowing employees to get away with abuses and it is discovered by your boss then it is your ass on the line.

As an illustration, I kind of would picture somewhat like this (watch the first 35 seconds or so)

[Edi]

The thing that is constantly overlooked is that there is a big difference between having a technical capability to do something, and actually doing it. By neccessity, a technical analyst needs to have the power to access a lot of data. The "keys to the kingdom" so to speak aren't abused because there are consequences to abuse. The final paragraph of the article, the NSA's response, essentially lays that out.

When a person in a technical position says "I could, without a warrant, search for anyone including Federal judges or the President" it's essentially ignoring the fact that it is illegal and something they would be suffer severe punitive measures for doing. It would sort of be akin to a Police officer saying "If I want, I could pull out my gun and shoot people at random" as though he would be free to get away with it.

I think the big thing missing in all of this, is an example where this technical capability abused, or how it is dealt with when such a situation arises. I'd like to see at least one example of an "average joe" whose information was improperly obtained via one of these programs.

You're even more of a moron than I thought if the "it's illegal, therefore they won't do it" shit is going to deter anyone in those agencies from doing anything. What they are doing is ALREADY illegal and they have the blessing of the powers that be from the president downwards. The only time anyone who abuses those powers is going to get in any kind of trouble will be if they target the president or the other powers that be that approve of the illegal surveillance.

On the other hand, look up people like Thomas Drake. Anyone who so much as squeaks about any abuse occurring is going to be ruthlessly targeted and thrown into prison if possible, their life otherwise ruined if throwing them in prison is not an option.

But go right on ahead pretending that there are no problems.

[Havok]

As far as I know, the internet is a completely voluntary. It also is akin to a public street. Why anyone thinks it's any different, despite guarantees of privacy from whatever porn site you are on, I have no idea.

[Purple]

As far as I know, the internet is a completely voluntary. It also is akin to a public street. Why anyone thinks it's any different, despite guarantees of privacy from whatever porn site you are on, I have no idea.

Are you saying that just because walking out on the street is voluntary it is completely fine for some government agency to record every step you take outside of your home?

[TheHammer]

The thing that is constantly overlooked is that there is a big difference between having a technical capability to do something, and actually doing it. By neccessity, a technical analyst needs to have the power to access a lot of data. The "keys to the kingdom" so to speak aren't abused because there are consequences to abuse. The final paragraph of the article, the NSA's response, essentially lays that out.

When a person in a technical position says "I could, without a warrant, search for anyone including Federal judges or the President" it's essentially ignoring the fact that it is illegal and something they would be suffer severe punitive measures for doing. It would sort of be akin to a Police officer saying "If I want, I could pull out my gun and shoot people at random" as though he would be free to get away with it.

I think the big thing missing in all of this, is an example where this technical capability abused, or how it is dealt with when such a situation arises. I'd like to see at least one example of an "average joe" whose information was improperly obtained via one of these programs.

You're even more of a moron than I thought if the "it's illegal, therefore they won't do it" shit is going to deter anyone in those agencies from doing anything. What they are doing is ALREADY illegal and they have the blessing of the powers that be from the president downwards. The only time anyone who abuses those powers is going to get in any kind of trouble will be if they target the president or the other powers that be that approve of the illegal surveillance.

On the other hand, look up people like Thomas Drake. Anyone who so much as squeaks about any abuse occurring is going to be ruthlessly targeted and thrown into prison if possible, their life otherwise ruined if throwing them in prison is not an option.

But go right on ahead pretending that there are no problems.

Fuck off

What I've said is that evidence of capability is not evidence of abuse. I want to see a leak showing me that the power has been abused not that it can be abused. The presumption of guilt because it's "the government" is paranoid delusia.

[General Zod]

Fuck off

What I've said is that evidence of capability is not evidence of abuse. I want to see a leak showing me that the power has been abused not that it can be abused. The presumption of guilt because it's "the government" is paranoid delusia.

You know what the funny thing is? If there were proper civilian oversight over this project, you wouldn't have to wait for a whistleblowing leak to tell you that power has been abused. Because it would be transparent and instances of abuse could be a matter of public record. There's enough precedent of the government doing really bad shit to unpopular groups that you really don't need evidence to want some kind of oversight.

[Grumman]

I don't think that's a very good analogy. With police officers, there's typically a lot of public records about the abuse occurring and a great deal of oversight. With something like this? Would the public ever know an abuse occurred if there was one? There's really no oversight or accountability here at all.

Not to mention that trying rectify this lack of oversight is considered a crime, and even suggesting there should be oversight might get yourself flagged by Obama's anti-whistleblower whistleblowers.

[Terralthra]

As far as I know, the internet is a completely voluntary. It also is akin to a public street. Why anyone thinks it's any different, despite guarantees of privacy from whatever porn site you are on, I have no idea.

Any logic which holds "the internet is voluntary and public" must also hold phone calls and snail mail letters equally public. So, you're comfortable with the government OCRing your mail and recording your phone calls? All your mail and phone calls, ever?

Also, TheHammer - the logic that it's ok to collect and record massive amounts of data because it only becomes criminal once the government looks at it inappropriately is roughly equivalent to saying that it's perfectly legal to download every song, book, movie, and tv show, so long as you never watch them.

[Singular Intellect]

So, you're comfortable with the government OCRing your mail and recording your phone calls? All your mail and phone calls, ever?

Why should that bother anyone aside from the hilarious notion of 'omg privacy is important because it's privacy!' argument?

So it could be on record somewhere I'm texting erotic messages and sending nude photos to my girlfriend. Who gives a fuck?

[Formless]

Yes, who gives a fuck if people happen to use the internet to organize their political parties, protest groups, gay clubs, private support groups for abuse victims or other vulnerable parties, and various other hypothetical/real communications of a private or political nature which the government or government employees may decide threaten themselves and their interests. Whatever could possibly go wrong with that???

Seriously, take the "sexting, lol" bullcrap and shove it up your asscrack. Its the most childish red herring you could possibly come up with, and its tiresome that it always comes up in these discussions like everyone is simply afraid of embarrassment. The privacy argument is not about that, never was, and never is. Its about the fact that many people do in fact use the internet for far more important things, and have legitimate reason to fear the government might single them out or otherwise abuse their rights if it is allowed unrestricted access to data on their internet activities.

This isn't your employer monitoring company computers we're talking about. Its the government monitoring the whole damn internet. Either get that through your skull, or shut up.

[Singular Intellect]

Yes, who gives a fuck if people happen to use the internet to organize their political parties, protest groups, gay clubs, private support groups for abuse victims or other vulnerable parties, and various other hypothetical/real communications of a private or political nature which the government or government employees may decide threaten themselves and their interests. Whatever could possibly go wrong with that???

Seriously, take the "sexting, lol" bullcrap and shove it up your asscrack. Its the most childish red herring you could possibly come up with, and its tiresome that it always comes up in these discussions like everyone is simply afraid of embarrassment. The privacy argument is not about that, never was, and never is. Its about the fact that many people do in fact use the internet for far more important things, and have legitimate reason to fear the government might single them out or otherwise abuse their rights if it is allowed unrestricted access to data on their internet activities.

This isn't your employer monitoring company computers we're talking about. Its the government monitoring the whole damn internet. Either get that through your skull, or shut up.

Still not seeing the problem. The only problem is if such monitoring is one sided, which is what you're assuming it will be.

[Formless]

1) why the fuck shouldn't I assume that? When did the public get the ability to spy on the government, numbnuts? From the beginning I've said that transparency is a problem here. I'm not seeing a counterargument or evidence to the contrary from you.

2) If you can't see the problem, stop participating in politics immediately. I'm serious. You're literally too stupid to vote, let alone do any of those political activities I just said the internet facilitates.

[Singular Intellect]

1) why the fuck shouldn't I assume that? When did the public get the ability to spy on the government, numbnuts?

When mobile technology started providing the public ubiquitous access to information anywhere and the ability to record anything anywhere. Let me know when you catch up to modern day technological marvels, numbnuts.

Nowadays a politician can't so much as sneeze without it being posted online for everyone to laugh at if desired.

[Formless]

Right. And when I have detailed access to information about any government worker up to and including president Obama on the same level as the program the article in the OP talks about, then you can come back here and brag about how much more you know about software than me. Until then, nice try, but no. You're just an imbecile.

Also, still not seeing a response to point #2, but whatever. Something tells me you're too interested in technological vaporware to be much of a threat to yourself politically anyway.