dagblog - Comments for "Big Brother and Silicon Valley"

There goes my cloud porn

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:58:32 +0000

There goes my cloud porn collection

Lawsuits are not about doing

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:56:06 +0000

In reply to Yes most of my links are from

Lawsuits are not about doing nothing. Stop and Frisk will end because of. Lawsuit. Driving While Black changed because of a lawsuit. The ACLU and EFF have filed lawsuits to address the surveillance programs. As I understand it, if they are found to have standing, the lawsuits will proceed.

Since your links were Pre-Obama, I can answer your question. Do I trust Obama more than I trust Snowden? Yes. We will see if further documents change that view.

Snowden yells about being killed by the US after his series of ongoing press conferences where he tells us the spying being done by the US without noting the spying being done on us.

Regarding yesterday's testimony, it was a Congressional hearing and in general don't really expse a great deal.some of the evidence that is said to explain how PRISM aided an investigation is classified and thus can't be discussed in an open hearing. Wyden and Udall may be correct or they may be incorrect. Time will tell.

I'm not sure how much Gore and Cheney are still in the loop. Gore could be correct and vindicated by a court decision. When Cheney calls someone else a traitor. I reject it out of hand.

Yes most of my links are from

ocean-kat — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:53:20 +0000

In reply to If I'm not mistaken those

Yes most of my links are from the Bush years. So that's ancient history. You're certain that all the abuses were discovered and stopped and nothing like that is happening now so let the NSA "hoover" up as much data as they want. Its an extension of what I said above only the name is different. Now maybe you say, well that was ~~Hoover~~ Bush and he was a bastard but its all just hunky dory now, I trust Obama.

Sure there's a lot of problems, stop and frisk, DWB, tasars, strip searches. None of them involve the NSA. Therefore we should just let the NSA do what ever it wants. I mean its got court oversight, secret of course, but you trust them. What are the names of those judges that you have such unswerving trust in? I can name everyone I trust so it should be no problem for you to name the judges on the FISA court that have earned such trust from you right off the top of your head. Just a quick list of the judges with a sentence or two explaining why you trust them. No googleing.

Senators Wyden and Udall released this joint statement:

“We have not yet seen any evidence showing that the NSA’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence. Gen. Alexander’s testimony yesterday suggested that the NSA’s bulk phone records collection program helped thwart ‘dozens’ of terrorist attacks, but all of the plots that he mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods. The public deserves a clear explanation.”

Until I see clear evidence of efficacy I'd return to another ancient American principle, warrants issued only for probable cause on American citizens. I happen to agree with that "left wing radical," no not Norm Chomsky, Al Gore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/14/al-gore-nsa-surveillance-una...

"I quite understand the viewpoint that many have expressed that they are fine with it and they just want to be safe but that is not really the American way," Gore said in a telephone interview.

"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment – and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear," he said. "It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."

Gore added: "This is not right."

The former vice-president was also unmoved by some recent opinion polls suggesting public opinion was in favour of surveillance

"I am not sure how to interpret polls on this, because we don't do dial groups on the bill of rights," he said.

He went on to call on Barack Obama and Congress to review the laws under which the NSA expanded its surveillance. "I think that the Congress and the administration need to make some changes in the law and in their behaviour so as to honour and obey the constitution of the United States," he said. "It is that simple."

Cloud computing will make

NCD — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:19:12 +0000

In reply to Here is data on 50 million

Cloud computing will make security, and privacy, even more challenging.

Here is data on 50 million

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:08:18 +0000

In reply to If I'm not mistaken those

Here is data on 50 million customers on a social website getting hacked.

The simple fact is Internet data is not secure. You should be as worried about the damage that can occur because corporations store your data as you are about being targeted by the government. The raid on corporate computers by hackers is a more common threat.

Here is a little taste of

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:01:02 +0000

In reply to If I'm not mistaken those

Here is a little taste of what is already going on on the Internet. A false report of explosions at the a White House transient sent the stock market downward. The AP's twitter account got hacked. Pranksters? Foreign government test.

If I'm not mistaken those

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:51:20 +0000

In reply to I'm not happy about the vast

If I'm not mistaken those calls between military spouses were part of the abuses reported to FISA by the Holder DOJ as abuses in 2009. Look at the dates for most of the abuses you report and the current administration wasn't the culprit.

Evil people will use whatever technology is available to do evil things. I'm looking for proof of Snowden's abuses in the current setup with court oversight. I do believe Congress should take a bigger role in oversight, but it won't because Congress does not want to be held responsible for anything. We are left to the administration in charge.

NSA is not required for Stop and Frisk or driving while Black. People are in court fighting the first assault on our freedom and the new choice for one of the seats on the DC Circuit court fought his own case of driving while Black to stop the wholesale profiling of Black citizens on public highways.

what specific restrictions do you want in place? Do you truly believe that foreign governments will follow your rules? If foreign governments will not follow your rules is it wise to have a counter attack system in place that could take out their computer grid if they strike at ours?

I'm not happy about the vast

ocean-kat — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:27:01 +0000

In reply to Big Brother and Silicon Valley

I'm not happy about the vast amounts of data corporations collect on people. I don't understand why people willingly participate. I've taken multiple steps to limit the amount of information I give to corporations. But even if corporations have more information than the government I worry less about corporate surveillance than government surveillance. The purposes and the use of that data is so different that corporate surveillance worries me less.

I'd like to use the ripper mccord situation as an illustration. Its not the best example but many of us know him from TPM and have had varying degrees of interaction with him. I hope people can look beyond the details of the case to see the broader implications.

Ripper was alleged to have started a fire in a politicians office. Google might scan his g-mail account and based on some key words put up ads for lighter fluid and matches. The NSA could declare this an act of terrorism, after all he is alleged to have started a fire in a politician's office, and scan his phone records and e-mail. I know some people at TPM were engaged in private communication with each other. The NSA now has those phone numbers and e-mail addresses and now you're part of the investigation.

Back in those days there was a fund raiser to send a couple of people to congress for the health care hearings. If my memory serves correctly one of those people was ripper. Now there's evidence from your bank records of you contributing to ripper's cause. Of course you say it was to send him to the health care hearing, but its suspicious activity and the investigation focuses in on you as a possible co-conspirator. Even if you're immediately cleared just being called in for questioning can have a large negative impact on your life.

I know, you're saying this was just a petty act of vandalism. Yes, I agree. But perfectly legal environmental groups have been designated eco-terrorists as well as peace activist groups engaged in civil disobedience These groups have been spied on, investigated, and infiltrated. Even if the group is perfectly innocent it just takes one stupid member, acting totally on their own, to trigger an investigation that can sweep up innocents.

http://abcnews.go.com/News/Blotter/fbi-spied-peta-greenpeace-anti-war-ac...

The FBI improperly targeted Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and two antiwar groups in domestic terrorism investigations between 2001 and 2006, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice said in a report released today.

The IG found there was "little or no basis" for the terror investigations, and that they were "unreasonable and inconsistent with FBI policy."

At least two of the investigations resulted in innocent people being placed on the domestic terror watch list for years, and one resulted in FBI Director Robert Mueller providing Congress with "inaccurate and misleading information," according to the report.

The investigation of the Merton Center began with a "make work" assignment for a FBI agent on a "slow day," the report said.

The Catholic Worker was investigated under the "Acts of Terrorism" classification after some of its members trespassed on a military facility and staged a peaceful protest.

I watched a news program on PBS about these and other investigations at the time. One of the groups targeted was a bunch of middle aged and old Quakers. What would google do when it scanned the members data? Probably insert an ad for Quaker Oats and other General Mills products. The government might put you on a no fly list.

Marijuana is still illegal. Why should I care, as Wolrich said, I lead a boring life. I don't smoke pot, I don't even drink alcohol more then 3 or 4 times a year. I was a hard drinking moderate drug user as a young man but now that I'm a cranky old fart I'm practically a teatotaler. But nany groups have members that still smoke pot, even some old Quakers, And I don't want to see activism I agree with inhibited by our inane drug laws. Especially when the information is detected by spurious or illegal investigations.

"But smoking pot is illegal," you say, :"they should just obey the law." Ok, well sexy talk on the phone to your wife or lover is legal.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/09/nsa_eavesdrop_americans_in_baghdad/

The whistle blowers told ABC News that intercept officers listened to the personal conversations of hundreds of Americans "who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism" calling from satellite phones in Baghdad's Green Zone.

The (sadly) unsurprising accusations run contrary to the Bush Administration's insistence that it only eavesdrops on those with links to Al Qaeda unless it first obtains judicial approval.

Former Navy Arab linguist David Faulk told ABC that he and other NSA workers would swap intimate phone calls for entertainment.

Faulk described he would be told, "Hey, check this out, there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy.'"

US Army Reserves Arab linguist Adrienne Kinne said NSA officers insisted operators continued monitoring conversations identified in their systems as belonging to humanitarian aid organizations such as the International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders.

You really think that information wouldn't be used to coerce, intimidate or embarrass someone in and environmental group or peace organization if it was part of a terrorism investigation? But why should I care? I'm not into phone sex.

Some people are really into anal sex. The corporations with that data use it to put up an ad for KY jelly. But how would you like it if your porn searches "accidentally" slip out during an investigation of the "terrorist" environmental group you're a member of? What would you do or say when questioned by law enforcement if they showed you your porn data and then assured you that they would never, ever, under any circumstances release that. Cross my heart and hope to die.

Things like this have happened. Now maybe you say, well that was Hoover and he was a bastard but its all just hunky dory now, I trust Obama. All this nonsense that people have been posting about not trusting Snowden or others but trusting this politician or that one seemed like so much incredible foolishness that I didn't think it merited a response. I don't trust anyone I don't have a personal relationship with, not even the politicians I like. But I guess some people actually trust some politicians they've never met and have no personal knowledge of or relationship with.

So to all you trusting people. Now that that wonderfully trustworthy guy is in change, isn't it time to limit the amount of data the government collects and the size of the surveillance state before one of those worthless untrustworthy politicians take over?

No, we don't make the laws,

EmmaZahn — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:58:45 +0000

In reply to I agree with this as well, I

No, we don't make the laws, as the article pointed out:

Last year, when Congress was poised to pass laws intended to protect intellectual property and prevent online piracy, tech companies, led by Google, struck back with one of the most effective lobbying tactics ever used: they shut down for a day. The effect was instantaneous—both bills went from easy sailing to overwhelming defeat. So much for that regulatory effort.

Granted the above describes a battle of interest groups lobbying Congress but that in itself illustrates who is actually making our laws and it is not us.

Combine that with the willingness of so many of us to open every aspect of their lives to marketers in exchange for some paltrey baubles, bells and whistles and what choice do the rest of us have but to go along with the herd and blindly accept unread the almost incomprehensible terms and conditions presented to us almost everyday.

Yes, I think we are pretty much screwed for at least the next decade or so and there is not much we can do to change it.

I agree with this as well, I

Michael Maiello — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:01:31 +0000

In reply to ... no one forces you to

I agree with this as well, I just don't see an either/or choice. We make the laws. We could, if we wanted, prevent PRISM and we could prevent Facebook from even putting you in a situation where it tracks all of your Amazon purchases. We could prevent cell phone suppliers from requiring two year contracts to subsidize phone purchases. We can prevent Experian from putting a negative note on your credit report without first contacting you to get your side. That "the private sector does it and it's worse," is not a great answer -- we don't have to allow the private sector to act this way.