NSA Director speaks at hacker conference to 'lay out the facts' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41670672]What the fuck, Facepunch? I thought we were against the massive, warrantless surveillance of millions of innocent people? "B-but it prevents terrorist attacks" so fucking what? Terrorism in western nations kills less people than fucking bath tubs. If your only concern is protection from terrorists, why don't we install security cameras in every residence? No more terrorism, I guarantee it. "But that's a slippery slope fallacy", bullshit, it's not a fallacy when we've been progressively sliding down it for decades while showing no signs of slowing down.[/QUOTE] [quote] [IMG]http://www.suburra.com/images - PD blog/TerroristBathtubsWEB.jpg[/IMG] [/quote] This was pretty interesting to watch but I bet most of it is just PR bullshit.

[QUOTE=sYnced;41669495]These programs are proven legal.[/QUOTE] Of course they're proven legal, if they weren't they could just make exceptions in the laws to make them legal In somewhat the same way that they get warrants to do surveillance every time they want to observe a person [sp]through a rubberstamp secret court[/sp]

Not really on a side here, don't really care as I'm not doing anything illegal. It may be quite ignorant but there is plenty of people that have every voice possible covered. But couldn't how safe we are from terrorism be attributed to NSA's work? I mean they surely could not be using this just for terrorism, but I'm sure there is at least some folks over there that actually care about the safety of America and the world.

[QUOTE=default911;41670873]Not really on a side here, don't really care as I'm not doing anything illegal. It may be quite ignorant but there is plenty of people that have every voice possible covered. But couldn't how safe we are from terrorism be attributed to NSA's work? I mean they surely could not be using this just for terrorism, but I'm sure there is at least some folks over there that actually care about the safety of America and the world.[/QUOTE] they can say they "thwarted a bunch of terrorist attacks" but i'm not going to believe that until they show some actual proof.

[quote=https://twitter.com/mikko/status/362611590383689728]Just saw security guards confiscate an egg carton from the #BlackHat audience, just before NSA Chief was due to talk. pic.twitter.com/9fKJ6ArKna[/quote]

Fair play to the guy, he didn't have to go and discuss anything.

Yeah he did. It was probably considered a pretty necessary PR move after Snowden even if the presentation is probably full of shit.

the best defences against terrorism arent guns and spying. it's welfare society and international neutrality. the first brings the stability and education required to stop most people from becoming radical and the second makes you a non target for foreign terrorists.

Probably playing the Devil's advocate here, but regardless of that; [QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41670672]What the fuck, Facepunch? I thought we were against the massive, warrantless surveillance of millions of innocent people? "B-but it prevents terrorist attacks" so fucking what? Terrorism in western nations kills less people than fucking bath tubs. If your only concern is protection from terrorists, why don't we install security cameras in every residence? No more terrorism, I guarantee it. "But that's a slippery slope fallacy", bullshit, it's not a fallacy when we've been progressively sliding down it for decades while showing no signs of slowing down.[/QUOTE] Why would you care if some government analyst behind a desk knows where you buy your groceries, what gaming newsletters you're subscribed to, and what kind of pornography you watch? It's not hurting you. Instead, it's protecting you, your friends, and the nation as a whole from not only terrorism, but criminal activities as well. You're acting as if the government is totally gonna fuck you up the ass because they know you accepted a facebook invite to a party, or that you sent an angry email to your ex-girlfriend. I don't see why they'd care for any of that - their job is to look for criminal activities, and unless your internet history shows 'www.alqaedaunited.killobama.com', they're not gonna be doing anything, instead they'll know that you're not a threat. As for your argument regarding people relatively dying less from terrorism than particular other causes, it doesn't mean it's not a problem any longer, people are still dying - nor are these initiatives meant to only be reacting to terrorism, but also preventing them. People don't usually die when you prevent a terrorist attack.

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41670672]"[I]B-but it prevents terrorist attacks[/I]" so fucking what? [B]Terrorism in western nations kills less people than fucking bath tubs[/B].[/QUOTE] Maybe without all these counter-terrorism programs the statistic you just said wouldn't be true. (Just to clarify, I am against NSA, but I see the possible benefits)

The most worrying part about this is the NSA uses XP.

[QUOTE=zurator;41672029]Maybe without all these counter-terrorism programs the statistic you just said wouldn't be true. (Just to clarify, I am against NSA, but I see the possible benefits)[/QUOTE] That's the tricky thing. We have no idea how true this is. All that information is classified.

[QUOTE][IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/q6se.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] the thing here is not that it doesn't get names and content of calls and messages, the thing is that if they want to they [B]can[/B] and they [B][I]will[/I][/B] and they have ability to listen to [B]absolutely anyone unchecked[/B], if you honestly believe that they won't because they're "not supposed to", then you obviously dont know how things work

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;41671920]Probably playing the Devil's advocate here, but regardless of that; Why would you care if some government analyst behind a desk knows where you buy your groceries, what gaming newsletters you're subscribed to, and what kind of pornography you watch? It's not hurting you. Instead, it's protecting you, your friends, and the nation as a whole from not only terrorism, but criminal activities as well. You're acting as if the government is totally gonna fuck you up the ass because they know you accepted a facebook invite to a party, or that you sent an angry email to your ex-girlfriend. I don't see why they'd care for any of that - their job is to look for criminal activities, and unless your internet history shows 'www.alqaedaunited.killobama.com', they're not gonna be doing anything, instead they'll know that you're not a threat. As for your argument regarding people relatively dying less from terrorism than particular other causes, it doesn't mean it's not a problem any longer, people are still dying - nor are these initiatives meant to only be reacting to terrorism, but also preventing them. People don't usually die when you prevent a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] My problem is that this power, once instilled, can be misused. I am not saying the government will go full totalitarian and hunt me down, but that doesn't have to happen at all. They have contractors, they have thousands of workers who are nothing but humans, and they can be corrupt. Snowden himself got away with what he got away with. How do I know that somebody who could be in conflict of interest with me doesn't buy my data from some corrupt official? How do I know somebody doesn't just hack it? We all know that USA agencies are known for their [I]stellar[/I] cybersecurity. Transparency is what is missing. If I sent to court for a crime I might have done, me as well as the court are entitled to know who handles the information the police finds, and the entire thing is based on court issued warrants and other rules. This is different. I can't know what they are collecting regarding me, I can't know who saw that data and what are they going to do about them. If I was to support this kind of system, it should be COMPLETELY transparent. There should be GUARANTEES that all the data they collect about me are encrypted and cannot be accessed by [I]anybody[/I] without court issued order for this kind of investigation on my person. I should also be liable to get [I]immediate[/I] rundown of all information stored there about me, with no exceptions.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41672368]My problem is that this power, once instilled, can be misused. I am not saying the government will go full totalitarian and hunt me down, but that doesn't have to happen at all. They have contractors, they have thousands of workers who are nothing but humans, and they can be corrupt. Snowden himself got away with what he got away with. How do I know that somebody who could be in conflict of interest with me doesn't buy my data from some corrupt official? How do I know somebody doesn't just hack it? Transparency is what is missing. If I sent to court for a crime I might have done, me as well as the court are entitled to know who handles the information the police finds, and the entire thing is based on court issued warrants and other rules. This is different. I can't know what they are collecting regarding me, I can't know who saw that data and what are they going to do about them. If I was to support this kind of system, it should be COMPLETELY transparent. There should be GUARANTEES that all the data they collect about me are encrypted and cannot be accessed by [I]anybody[/I] without court issued order for this kind of investigation on my person. I should also be liable to get [I]immediate[/I] rundown of all information stored there about me, with no exceptions.[/QUOTE] I do agree, there needs to be some transparency.Though transparency could also be misused by those who wants harm. As I learned in my Cyber Security class a couple months back when I was still in college, hackers will try to get information not through hacking for passwords, but rather by simply dialing a number, contacting said company and simply asking for the password by pretending to be a fellow employee. Now I know that what your saying is different, but if something helps people, then there will always be people who want to abuse it. I don't know how they would, but it would happen if they were desperate enough.

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;41671920] Why would you care if some government analyst behind a desk knows where you buy your groceries, what gaming newsletters you're subscribed to, and what kind of pornography you watch? It's not hurting you. Instead, it's protecting you, your friends, and the nation as a whole from not only terrorism, but criminal activities as well. You're acting as if the government is totally gonna fuck you up the ass because they know you accepted a facebook invite to a party, or that you sent an angry email to your ex-girlfriend. I don't see why they'd care for any of that - their job is to look for criminal activities, and unless your internet history shows 'www.alqaedaunited.killobama.com', they're not gonna be doing anything, instead they'll know that you're not a threat. As for your argument regarding people relatively dying less from terrorism than particular other causes, it doesn't mean it's not a problem any longer, people are still dying - nor are these initiatives meant to only be reacting to terrorism, but also preventing them. People don't usually die when you prevent a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] man i really hate when people pull the whole "you shouldn't be worried if you have nothing to hide" argument for things like this governments change; people in governments are still just that--people, with their own feelings, opinions, ambitions and agendas what if a few decades down the line, the government starts to become more and more oppressive, and suddenly you're finding yourself getting arrested for googling something that's deemed unacceptable to google now? for an example, with the whole anti-gay shitstorm that's been happening in russia recently, imagine if it got even worse, and a monitoring program such as this was used against people?

[QUOTE=Falchion;41671354]the best defences against terrorism arent guns and spying. it's welfare society and international neutrality. the first brings the stability and education required to stop most people from becoming radical and the second makes you a non target for foreign terrorists.[/QUOTE] I really doubt 'terrorists' spread 'terror' because they hate the Western countries and their ideals. If that were true, there'd be bombings all over Europe, not just America, and the London bombing a few years back. I'm not really informed on everything, maybe even oblivious to things, going on but the word 'terrorist' and the war against terrorism is a load of bullshit to me They really need to take a step back and wonder WHY they get attacked.

[QUOTE=Turing;41672352]the thing here is not that it doesn't get names and content of calls and messages, the thing is that if they want to they [B]can[/B] and they [B][I]will[/I][/B] and they have ability to listen to [B]absolutely anyone unchecked[/B], if you honestly believe that they won't because they're "not supposed to", then you obviously dont know how things work[/QUOTE] correct me if i'm wrong but they won't and can't check the names of phone numbers unless they have suspicion that you're a terrorist, and so if you're not a terrorist your privacy isn't being breached. at the end of the day why would they want to listen to the millions of calls that the population of the USA make, it's illogical. the only reason you have to worry is if you're a criminal, and if you aren't, the likelihood of them querying your number is low. of course you could say "well, how do we know they don't listen to everybody's calls?" or something along the lines of what uber noob said, but this would mean that the entire government is corrupt and they are in this for more than the safety of it's citizens. if this is true, americans are fucked regardless and there's nothing they can do

[QUOTE=Neo222;41672424]I do agree, there needs to be some transparency.Though transparency could also be misused by those who wants harm. As I learned in my Cyber Security class a couple months back when I was still in college, hackers will try to get information not through hacking for passwords, but rather by simply dialing a number, contacting said company and simply asking for the password by pretending to be a fellow employee. Now I know that what your saying is different, but if something helps people, then there will always be people who want to abuse it. I don't know how they would, but it would happen if they were desperate enough.[/QUOTE] Perhaps, but I don't trust the current state of things at all. Furthermore, I find it highly undiplomatic how USA is handling [B]MY[/B] data, while I am not subject of American law. Fifty years ago, deliberately collecting massive amounts of data on citizens of another nation without any international agreement would be considered an act of hostility and espionage. I mean, how would you all feel if it was North Korea's intelligence agency collecting your data? Or lets be slightly less ridiculous and more realistic - China. In my case, Poland. Without trying to be nationalistic, all of these countries have no business in whatever I do as long as it doesn't directly influence them and if that's the case, they have to contact Interpol and initiate an international investigation. Again, all of the official habits rules are ignored and bypassed.

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;41671920]Probably playing the Devil's advocate here, but regardless of that; Why would you care if some government analyst behind a desk knows where you buy your groceries, what gaming newsletters you're subscribed to, and what kind of pornography you watch? It's not hurting you. Instead, it's protecting you, your friends, and the nation as a whole from not only terrorism, but criminal activities as well. You're acting as if the government is totally gonna fuck you up the ass because they know you accepted a facebook invite to a party, or that you sent an angry email to your ex-girlfriend. I don't see why they'd care for any of that - their job is to look for criminal activities, and unless your internet history shows 'www.alqaedaunited.killobama.com', they're not gonna be doing anything, instead they'll know that you're not a threat. As for your argument regarding people relatively dying less from terrorism than particular other causes, it doesn't mean it's not a problem any longer, people are still dying - nor are these initiatives meant to only be reacting to terrorism, but also preventing them. People don't usually die when you prevent a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] Our government has probably good intentions, I can't say the same for other intelligence agencies though. What if enemies took a hold of that information? Facebook comments are hardly of any use, blueprints are.

[QUOTE=Turing;41672352]the thing here is not that it doesn't get names and content of calls and messages, the thing is that if they want to they [B]can[/B] and they [B][I]will[/I][/B] and they have ability to listen to [B]absolutely anyone unchecked[/B], if you honestly believe that they won't because they're "not supposed to", then you obviously dont know how things work[/QUOTE] Explain to us [I]exactly[/I] how the NSA works so that we can understand, please.

[QUOTE=Falchion;41671354]the best defences against terrorism arent guns and spying. it's welfare society and international neutrality. the first brings the stability and education required to stop most people from becoming radical and the second makes you a non target for foreign terrorists.[/QUOTE] the united states is only interested in shitty short term programs

When they finally come out and say exactly what terrorist attacks they stopped, how, and what they where - then maybe I'll listen. But really, it's just fluff otherwise. That's like arguing for gun control saying "removal of guns stopped some major shootings, yep" and then walking off stage with no explanation. :v:

[QUOTE=Doom14;41673757]When they finally come out and say exactly what terrorist attacks they stopped, how, and what they where - then maybe I'll listen. But really, it's just fluff otherwise. That's like arguing for gun control saying "removal of guns stopped some major shootings, yep" and then walking off stage with no explanation. :v:[/QUOTE] Can't you see that they're protecting you from [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295259"]domestic terrorists[/URL] making stuff like pressure cooker bombs? Evil people like this are stopped every day, while patriotic americans doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear! All it'd take for something like this to go wrong is a couple of overzealous people making mistakes - or the government using the same information the wrong way later down the line.

[QUOTE=Doom14;41673757]When they finally come out and say exactly what terrorist attacks they stopped, how, and what they where - then maybe I'll listen. But really, it's just fluff otherwise. That's like arguing for gun control saying "removal of guns stopped some major shootings, yep" and then walking off stage with no explanation. :v:[/QUOTE] You know everyone here bitches about the media glorifying mass shooters...

On the General's comment saying "How are we [The Nation] in the way of these terrorist organizations, when they want Sharia Law [instead of Western Democracy]". To be honest, if we haven't stuck our necks out ordered by a select few twats (Some Politicians) who feel they have to be big man on campus and announce our presence by say Vietnam, the Middle East and elsewhere, then we wouldn't be put on terrorist's shit lists (On a grand scale) and hence wouldn't be having this critical debate of Safety vs Privacy. On the other side its potentially a good thing we're in the middle of maturing as a nation when it comes to dealing with issues like this. Eitherway, Star Trek's Prime Directive could be so applicable to this whole scenario.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;41676014]On the General's comment saying "How are we [The Nation] in the way of these terrorist organizations, when they want Sharia Law [instead of Western Democracy]". To be honest, if we haven't stuck our necks out ordered by a select few twats (Some Politicians) who feel they have to be big man on campus and announce our presence by say Vietnam, the Middle East and elsewhere, then we wouldn't be put on terrorist's shit lists (On a grand scale) and hence wouldn't be having this critical debate of Safety vs Privacy. On the other side its potentially a good thing we're in the middle of maturing as a nation when it comes to dealing with issues like this. Eitherway, Star Trek's Prime Directive could be so applicable to this whole scenario.[/QUOTE] Terrorism is not a recent invention [url]http://cjc.delaware.gov/PDF/part%201.pdf[/url]

do people actually believe these speeches that the NSA has been giving in wake of snowden lol oh you say you're not doing anything wrong? immediately after someone exposed you doing a bunch of stuff that was and still is wrong? okay yes im satisfied everything is ok now [editline]1st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=scout1;41675417]You know everyone here bitches about the media glorifying mass shooters...[/QUOTE] this isn't even remotely the same thing you can easily release details of a planned terrorist attack that was stopped via NSA's questionable procedures without glorifying the case and turning it into a media frenzy like mass shooters are.

[QUOTE=scout1;41676103]Terrorism is not a recent invention [url]http://cjc.delaware.gov/PDF/part%201.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Neither is it a linear concept either...I was assuming cycling back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that our involvement with attempting to prevent/intervene the human rights atrocities lead by Ayatollah Khomeini that lead to where we are today with terrorist groups (Or specifically, radically islamic-drive terrorists groups) have as that PDF put it "vengenace" with our involvement. In which case, its a double edged sword that we involved our selves. Atleast on the surface we intended to stop these human rights atrocities, however that just seems to perpetuate the vicious cycle. So where do we draw the line?

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41670672]What the fuck, Facepunch? I thought we were against the massive, warrantless surveillance of millions of innocent people? "B-but it prevents terrorist attacks" so fucking what? Terrorism in western nations kills less people than fucking bath tubs. If your only concern is protection from terrorists, why don't we install security cameras in every residence? No more terrorism, I guarantee it. "But that's a slippery slope fallacy", bullshit, it's not a fallacy when we've been progressively sliding down it for decades while showing no signs of slowing down.[/QUOTE] The reason terrorism doesn't kill that many Americans is because we have lots of people working to prevent this. It's not because of a lack of effort on the terrorists part. The west is safe in large part due to programs like this. And it is a slippery slope fallacy that you are spouting. Our response to the threat of terror has been pretty measured. People like you screaming foul want to deny our national security services the tools they need to catch people who wish us harm because you wish to have complete privacy, maybe you should know they don't intercept text or voice messages. They have access to the same info your telephone company does. And I'm all for a free Internet, but we have to be proactive and keep a look out for people who are using the Internet as a tool for their next attack. With 100% audibility there is 0% chance of abuse. The program has intense oversight, and is both constitutional and legal. And its not warrantless, to access your information they have to get a warrant from a judge.