NSA tool 'XKeyscore'l collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' - Polidicks

So... uhm.. about that History... yeah... uhm... would you... just keep it for yourself? Please?

The concerning thing about this is that they are doing it without FISA being involved as well.

[QUOTE=Binladen34;41660548]What the fuck is the point of this? Seriously there are no more terrorisms in the world. You killed them all, and the non terrorisms.[/QUOTE] they can literally build a database on every person worldwide. then track potential targets that could rebel and offer great leadership to those who follow and arrest them right when they start doing it. people who are too dumb to think for themselfs will be safe, but everybody else will either be tracked for life or arrested at the first sign of rebellion.

[QUOTE=Pig;41661590]How would you feel if someone stood over you and watched every thing you're doing on the internet?[/QUOTE] They do receive so much data that there is no way they can read it all, and as the article states most of it is gone within days. The overwhelming majority of the data never reaches human eyes and then is gone forever. Not saying there's no cause for concern, but your analogy isn't exactly 1:1. Also, it's not just Americans that should be concerned about this. Read the classification banners at the tops of the slides. This info was going to Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand as well, so they're all in on it.

[QUOTE=Shadaez;41661696]i love when people say this and continue doing nothing while criticizing others not doing anything. organize something if you care so much[/QUOTE] I don't know how valid that criticism is anymore Let's look at the last few years, the occupy movement went out there and really kept at the "occupy" part of it, yet due to the way the media dealt with them, the actual impact of their movement was minimized quite neatly. In order for movement to work it no longer takes motivated groups of individuals, it now takes all that plus the ability to change how the current media will deal with changes in the status quo. I just don't feel like America has been the place where anyone could go out and change things in any serious manner for years now. Not without fantastic sums of money.

[QUOTE=Mallow234;41660609][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January–June_2013[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The list here is incomplete, please add to it to make it better.[/QUOTE] Nope

I'm pretty sure this is bullshit. For one, most sites use HTTPS, how the hell can they read that data without every SSL key ever made?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;41665436]I'm pretty sure this is bullshit. For one, most sites use HTTPS, how the hell can they read that data without every SSL key ever made?[/QUOTE] They actually wanted those keys a while back.

[QUOTE=uzikus;41665470]They actually wanted those keys a while back.[/QUOTE] So then they don't have them right now, which makes this thing pretty insane to believe.

I'm imagining how awkward it would be to use one-time pads and snail mail for private conversations. really awkward that or an encrypted voice line

[QUOTE=scout1;41661687]How would you feel if a computer look at what you do on the internet? Cause that happens every time you access a server whether or not it's the NSA doing it, lol[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;41664847]They do receive so much data that there is no way they can read it all, and as the article states most of it is gone within days. The overwhelming majority of the data never reaches human eyes and then is gone forever. Not saying there's no cause for concern, but your analogy isn't exactly 1:1. Also, it's not just Americans that should be concerned about this. Read the classification banners at the tops of the slides. This info was going to Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand as well, so they're all in on it.[/QUOTE] while these are both true, it really doesn't mean its justified, especially "Just because" its a computer. How the hell does that make it "OK" Scout1?

Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of: [B] Surveillance by secret agents[/B]

This gives me even more of a reason to share my fetishes with the government.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;41666112]Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of: [B] Surveillance by secret agents[/B][/QUOTE] Google has been trying to warn us all along.

[QUOTE=TAU!;41666130]This gives me even more of a reason to share my fetishes with the government.[/QUOTE] My fetish is having the government know about my fetishes

[img]http://i.imgur.com/uAFM9j0.png[/img] welp

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;41665436]I'm pretty sure this is bullshit. For one, most sites use HTTPS, how the hell can they read that data without every SSL key ever made?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.dailytech.com/FBI+NSA+Want+Master+Encryption+Keys+from+Internet+Companies/article32046.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;41660855]XKeyscore sounds like something a 12 year old would name a keylogger[/QUOTE] I thought so, too [img]http://puu.sh/3QJk7/cc183083e2.png[/img] [QUOTE=and;41666988][img]http://i.imgur.com/uAFM9j0.png[/img][/QUOTE] What's with the US government and criminalizing encryption? [editline]31st July 2013[/editline] I guess I'm a terrorist for using LastPass

[QUOTE=J!NX;41666064]while these are both true, it really doesn't mean its justified, especially "Just because" its a computer. How the hell does that make it "OK" Scout1?[/QUOTE] Just gonna throw this out there, but we probably aren't getting the whole story from the Guardian. Think of whenever news agencies discuss guns, or the Internet. They're full of factual errors and logical inconsistencies and Facepunch has no trouble taking them to task over it. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to suppose that a news agency, working off of a few slides out of context and intended for a very technical audience, might exaggerate, misunderstand, or overstate some of the details. If there's a computer program trawling public data (not like your private emails, but public sites, forums, servers, stuff like that), saving info that seems useful and discarding the rest, with no human operator connecting the dots (nobody sticking a little 'porn sites visited' file in a directory with your name), is that really a problem? I'm not going for rhetoric, I want your opinion. We live in an age where the surest privacy comes not from keeping your information hidden from view, but hiding it in plain sight amidst the data of millions and millions of other people. If nobody's reducing it back down to specifically identifying people without a really good justification, isn't that pretty safe?

[QUOTE=Zambies!;41660449]How can a system handle all of that? That almost seems like something the NSA would embellish.[/QUOTE] You'd be amazed. When I went back home from turkey to JFK they had the entire US citizen database on what looks like a shit Dell from 2006.

how much of it is porn

[QUOTE=OneFourth;41669504]how much of it is porn[/QUOTE] all

[QUOTE=J!NX;41666064]while these are both true, it really doesn't mean its justified, especially "Just because" its a computer. How the hell does that make it "OK" Scout1?[/QUOTE] You are already okay with a computer (and potentially people) examining your communications everytime you access the internet. If you send a PM on here and it say trips a spam filter maybe garry has to go check to make sure it's not spam. Oh no, Garry just saw all your communications. So did the server, as it read the text of your PM to analytically determine if your PM was spam. Both of these things could happen during any normal internet communication yet obviously there's no problem with it until recently?

[QUOTE=weedscopes;41669409]You'd be amazed. When I went back home from turkey to JFK they had the entire US citizen database on what looks like a shit Dell from 2006.[/QUOTE] You do understand how much data passes through the internet in a single second, correct?

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;41670449]Are you really comparing server logs to unauthorised internet surveillance? [/QUOTE] Depends what you mean unauthorized. A lot of people seem convinced that handing over their data/communications to a third party like google who then willfully hands them over to the US govt is 'unauthorized'.

[QUOTE=scout1;41672483]Depends what you mean unauthorized. A lot of people seem convinced that handing over their data/communications to a third party like google who then willfully hands them over to the US govt is 'unauthorized'.[/QUOTE] Unauthorized in the sense that nobody had any idea how bad the government's online surveillance of civilian services have gotten, and never felt they authorized those services to share their content with anyone, especially governments???

I don't see what is wrong with being accountable for what you say and do online. I've said a lot of stupid things and if it comes back to haunt me, so be it. The only difference between your web stuff and your "real life" is an imaginary line created by your own mind. It isn't like they are secretly manipulating evidence and forging reasons to make people disappear. "but they could." Then what is to stop your local police from doing the same? It's all faith based. If you believe in and trust it, it works. If you don't, then all your paranoid nightmares seem to follow you around.

[QUOTE=and;41682687]Unauthorized in the sense that nobody had any idea how bad the government's online surveillance of civilian services have gotten, and never felt they authorized those services to share their content with anyone, especially governments???[/QUOTE] In addition, "But you have nothing to hide if you're not doing anything wrong!" No. This is a serious problem and it needs to stop now, before it gets any worse (police show up if you type a "bad" word (Snowden, NSA, PATRIOT...) too many times, etc)