In a shocking unexpected move that nobody predicted, NSA data will soon routinely be used for domes
68 replies, posted
oh no my porn history
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49923505]That's interesting, so it's not like they've literally recorded all your calls or something?[/QUOTE]
They only appear to mass record the metadata of your communication. The who, when and where. The data storage needed to hold every single call made or message would be stupendous. Especially when it's needed long term for evidence.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49924341]You want to trample on our GLORIOUS FREEDOM and LIBERTY? You want to ignore the CONSTITUTION?
Are you a COMMUNIST?[/QUOTE]
Yes but if we don't do this ISIS will butcher our children in the streets while Mexican drug lords and rapists peddle illicid substances to our other children!
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49924366]Well maybe one day we will have a drug dealers union to provide a safer work environment for drug dealers[/QUOTE]
Hope so man, even Carlos can only protect you from so much
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49924383]The data storage needed to hold every single call made or message would be stupendous. Especially when it's needed long term for evidence.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily true of (text based) messages, only because audio can't really compress super well without becoming incomprehensible would it pose extreme storage costs. A Terabyte however could hold multiple millions of text messages without any compression, text is like the cheapest thing to store. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that they have a large percentage of the nations sent texts, Skype conversations, Apple's message stuff, all in a large database hidden somewhere.
"Why are people freaking out about the NSA? If you're not doing illegal stuff and aren't a terrorist you have nothing to hide..."
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49923405]What kind of data do they go off for this kind of thing? Phone numbers that have been called, websites visited?[/QUOTE]
As much as your digital life as they can. So yes, websites visited, what you post, like, and share on Facebook, twitter, etc.
Eventually when they collect enough about you, they can automatically match you to certain patterns of behavior, and figure out who you are, even if you're trying to be anonymous.
Also, the NSA has made the argument that they're only collecting phone call metadata, but let's be honest, they've lied before, they're not building the massive Bluffdale Datacenter for no reason.
I can't prove that they're doing it, but if you consider TTS processing, the NSA can probably record and transcribe pretty much the entirety of the USA's phone traffic in realtime for at least a few days without interruption. They don't need to look at it as it comes in, they just need to store it for later pattern recognition and other Big Data techniques.
Meanwhile, all these shootings and shit keep happening and aren't being stopped. It's true that we don't know how many ARE stopped because of surveillance data, but I don't think everyone on the planet's privacy being a fair trade-off unless 50 years from now it comes out that post-9/11 surveillance caught like 15 9/11-copycat plots before they happened -- and even then it'll be debatable if the destruction of the privacy of the citizen was worth it.
Welp this just destroyed the new EU-US safe harbor agreement.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49924982]I can't prove that they're doing it, but if you consider TTS processing, the NSA can probably record and transcribe pretty much the entirety of the USA's phone traffic in realtime for at least a few days without interruption. They don't need to look at it as it comes in, they just need to store it for later pattern recognition and other Big Data techniques.
Meanwhile, all these shootings and shit keep happening and aren't being stopped. It's true that we don't know how many ARE stopped because of surveillance data, but I don't think everyone on the planet's privacy being a fair trade-off unless 50 years from now it comes out that post-9/11 surveillance caught like 15 9/11-copycat plots before they happened -- and even then it'll be debatable if the destruction of the privacy of the citizen was worth it.[/QUOTE]
they've been doing this long before 9/11. they've been monitoring all communications over satellites since the first communications satellites went up with ECHELON and have had other ground-based surveillance dragnet monitoring phone and internet in some large population areas (San Francisco Bay area, for one) since the late 80s. it just ramped up even more after 9/11
[editline]13th March 2016[/editline]
and it isn't only monitoring of US communications, if you live in Canada, UK, Australia, or New Zealand, you've probably been monitored your whole life, as well.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49925391]they've been doing this long before 9/11. they've been monitoring all communications over satellites since the first communications satellites went up with ECHELON and have had other ground-based surveillance dragnet monitoring phone and internet in some large population areas (San Francisco Bay area, for one) since the late 80s. it just ramped up even more after 9/11
[editline]13th March 2016[/editline]
and it isn't only monitoring of US communications, if you live in Canada, UK, Australia, or New Zealand, you've probably been monitored your whole life, as well.[/QUOTE]
Well, yes.
But I'm talking about full-on realtime recording and transcription and storage of [U]all[/U] voice calls in the USA. The entire network. All of it. Not targeted tapping, bulk collection and storage of every landline and mobile phone call happening on US circuits as you read this.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49923505]That's interesting, so it's not like they've literally recorded all your calls or something?[/QUOTE]
If they're targeting you then they are.
That's the thing. It's not like the NSA is spying on absolutely everybody.... not yet, at least. And they don't have to, but it's still a problem. All they have to do is target people creating change, modern martin luther kings, and then monitor them. They did it with MLK himself, got a bunch of dirt on him, then told him to kill himself. They did it with many others as well.
I personally have no problem with this honestly. Im surprised they weren't already doing this, in fact. I hope they can use this to catch sexual predators, high level drug dealers, and other "silk road"/deep web type criminals.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49925830]I personally have no problem with this honestly. Im surprised they weren't already doing this, in fact. I hope they can use this to catch sexual predators, high level drug dealers, and other "silk road"/deep web type criminals.[/QUOTE]
edit: Sorry, [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1510236]thought I was in this thread.[/url]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49925940]They're doing it because if they got a slave pregnant they had to marry them or something, and it would prevent them from passing them around like the only bong at a stoner party.[/QUOTE]
Uh
What
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49925940]They're doing it because if they got a slave pregnant they had to marry them or something, and it would prevent them from passing them around like the only bong at a stoner party.[/QUOTE]
wrong thread?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49925965]wrong thread?[/QUOTE]
Yep, must have mixed up my headlines, thought I was in the [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1510236]ISIS using birth control pills on sex slaves thread[/url], my bad. Guess I need to start re-reading above-posts before replying to posts (Or stop posting from my phone).
Oops.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49925830]I personally have no problem with this honestly. Im surprised they weren't already doing this, in fact. I hope they can use this to catch sexual predators, high level drug dealers, and other "silk road"/deep web type criminals.[/QUOTE]
You have no problem with the government infringing on the rights of millions of its citizens?
I should probably leave this police state soon. There's no hope of reform if anybody but Sanders wins in November.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49922374]Not if they do [URL="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/how-the-dea-uses-parallel-construction-to-hide-unconstitutional-investigations.html"]parallel construction[/URL].
It is a really clever trick. NSA finds out that Joe sells 2 kilograms of marijuana a month, they dispatch the information and everything about Joe to the DEA, including his personal habits, activities and his schedule (e..g when he leaves the house.) This is a decades old, bedrock concept utilized by the DEA.
As you know, saying to the courts that you have illegally obtained information that Joe the drug dealer has sold drugs acquired fresh from NSA databanks, is not a valid probable cause. There has to be something that Joe did in front of LEOs that "triggered" the investigation of him in the first place. So what they do, is recreate the investigation trail. They find some minor crime that Joe has committed, like for example, a broken tail light. They wait until Joe is transporting large amount of drugs in the car with the broken tail light, and THEN they pull him over. The officer "spots" the drugs either by plain-view sight or by calling in drug dogs (again with no valid reason). After the DEA finds it, they can say they busted Joe based on legal pretenses and the judge would allow it.
It would not simply be possible for the DEA to bust Joe because the NSA has gathered intel on Joe when neither government agency hasn't acquired sufficient probable cause.[/QUOTE]
They use this infomation to know which people to target for an investigation, or else this program would not exist simply because there was no reason for it to exist.
No matter what they do with the information, the mere act of collecting it is unconstitutional and should be frowned upon,a man who has nothing to hide shall have neither liberty nor security when he needs it the most.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;49926311]They use this infomation to know which people to target for an investigation, or else this program would not exist simply because there was no reason for it to exist.[/QUOTE]
The NSA is explicitly disallowed from targeting Americans and can only collect data on Americans if it's incidental to foreign collection, so Starpluck's example requires that Joe the drug dealer is either a foreign national planning drug sales from another country, or in active contact with a foreign supplier.
Under both the old and new laws it would be valid for that collection to be shared from the NSA to the FBI, who would then make an arrest. That would be legally-gathered information and no parallel construction would be needed, but they might employ parallel construction if there was a need to hide the method of collection.
A better example would be if Joe is perfectly innocent but has a friend in Mexico who crosses the border to traffic drugs. If the NSA collects a phone conversation between him and the drug dealer, under the old system the NSA would be responsible for purging the data on Joe before sharing the information with the FBI to make an arrest when the dealer is in the US. Under the new system, the NSA will share the data directly and the FBI will be responsible for purging Joe from the records.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49926405]The NSA is explicitly disallowed from targeting Americans and can only collect data on Americans if it's incidental to foreign collection, so Starpluck's example requires that Joe the drug dealer is either a foreign national planning drug sales from another country, or in active contact with a foreign supplier.
Under both the old and new laws it would be valid for that collection to be shared from the NSA to the FBI, who would then make an arrest. That would be legally-gathered information and no parallel construction would be needed, but they might employ parallel construction if there was a need to hide the method of collection.
A better example would be if Joe is perfectly innocent but has a friend in Mexico who crosses the border to traffic drugs. If the NSA collects a phone conversation between him and the drug dealer, under the old system the NSA would be responsible for purging the data on Joe before sharing the information with the FBI to make an arrest when the dealer is in the US. Under the new system, the NSA will share the data directly and the FBI will be responsible for purging Joe from the records.[/QUOTE]
That's assuming they're only targeting non-americans. The problem is I trust the NSA as far as I can throw them, and I can't throw them.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49926405]The NSA is explicitly disallowed from targeting Americans and can only collect data on Americans if it's incidental to foreign collection, so Starpluck's example requires that Joe the drug dealer is either a foreign national planning drug sales from another country, or in active contact with a foreign supplier.
Under both the old and new laws it would be valid for that collection to be shared from the NSA to the FBI, who would then make an arrest. That would be legally-gathered information and no parallel construction would be needed, but they might employ parallel construction if there was a need to hide the method of collection.
A better example would be if Joe is perfectly innocent but has a friend in Mexico who crosses the border to traffic drugs. If the NSA collects a phone conversation between him and the drug dealer, under the old system the NSA would be responsible for purging the data on Joe before sharing the information with the FBI to make an arrest when the dealer is in the US. Under the new system, the NSA will share the data directly and the FBI will be responsible for purging Joe from the records.[/QUOTE]
isn't this just the legal framework they're supposed to work in? hasn't it since been revealed that they collect meta data on everything even outside of their purview?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;49926421]That's assuming they're only targeting non-americans. The problem is I trust the NSA as far as I can throw them, and I can't throw them. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49926425]isn't this just the legal framework they're supposed to work in?[/QUOTE]
I get that government skepticism is in vogue, especially where the NSA is concerned, but this isn't really a matter of whether you trust the NSA or not. They're subject to oversight from the PIAB/IOB, the SSCI and HSPCI, the FISA courts, the JICC and DNI directly, the OIG, and I believe ever since Snowden the GAO as well, and that's on top of all the different legal avenues for whistleblowers.
So if you can find a reliable source on deliberate collection targeted against US persons within the US then I'll believe it, but otherwise it's basically asserting without evidence that they're actively committing a bigger scandal and cover-up than PRISM (which followed the rules I outlined above), and somehow keeping it hidden from every organization higher in the food chain while still sharing data with other agencies and I guess hoping that nobody tips off Congress. That doesn't seem at all likely to me.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49925830]I personally have no problem with this honestly. Im surprised they weren't already doing this, in fact. I hope they can use this to catch sexual predators, high level drug dealers, and other "silk road"/deep web type criminals.[/QUOTE]
The first one is a good use of the system, the other two are not as that is just a hydra that will always fight back. Though that's a waste to use it to go after those people, the best thing to do is go after any person who stands against what they want. You can literally stop anyone from imposing on how you want the world to be. On the plus side as least America is going down hill so if it falls so does the NSA.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49926790]I get that government skepticism is in vogue, especially where the NSA is concerned, but this isn't really a matter of whether you trust the NSA or not. They're subject to oversight from the PIAB/IOB, the SSCI and HSPCI, the FISA courts, the JICC and DNI directly, the OIG, and I believe ever since Snowden the GAO as well, and that's on top of all the different legal avenues for whistleblowers.
So if you can find a reliable source on deliberate collection targeted against US persons within the US then I'll believe it, but otherwise it's basically asserting without evidence that they're actively committing a bigger scandal and cover-up than PRISM (which followed the rules I outlined above), and somehow keeping it hidden from every organization higher in the food chain while still sharing data with other agencies and I guess hoping that nobody tips off Congress. That doesn't seem at all likely to me.[/QUOTE]
When they managed to more or less hide all these things for as long as they did, I'm skeptical to actually truth the oversight which has always been lacking.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49925830]I personally have no problem with this honestly. Im surprised they weren't already doing this, in fact. I hope they can use this to catch sexual predators, high level drug dealers, and other "silk road"/deep web type criminals.[/QUOTE]
This
With the amount of shit the NSA got caught spying on, I was wondering why they weren't already using all the mass surveillance to make the communities of the country a tad bit safer
[QUOTE=catbarf;49926790]I get that government skepticism is in vogue, especially where the NSA is concerned, but this isn't really a matter of whether you trust the NSA or not. They're subject to oversight from the PIAB/IOB, the SSCI and HSPCI, the FISA courts, the JICC and DNI directly, the OIG, and I believe ever since Snowden the GAO as well, and that's on top of all the different legal avenues for whistleblowers.
So if you can find a reliable source on deliberate collection targeted against US persons within the US then I'll believe it, but otherwise it's basically asserting without evidence that they're actively committing a bigger scandal and cover-up than PRISM (which followed the rules I outlined above), and somehow keeping it hidden from every organization higher in the food chain while still sharing data with other agencies and I guess hoping that nobody tips off Congress. That doesn't seem at all likely to me.[/QUOTE]
This was before the NSA was a thing but here's a disgusting example of citizen surveillance from the FBI
[t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/ed/a2/e0eda2ac5886ed03346c19cace2ed492.jpg[/t]
Not sure how many times I'll have to point out that the government absolutely can't be trusted with this shit, but they can't. At all.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49926173]You have no problem with the government infringing on the rights of millions of its citizens?[/QUOTE]
See, that's a really loaded way to frame the question. You're not going to convince me of your opinion if you come out the gates with "you're a fascist".
No, I don't have a problem with the government monitoring communication channels to prevent crime or terrorism. If you don't want your communications seen or read, encrypt your messages in some way, though Im guessing you're worried about the NSA seeing your Gmail or Facebook when you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from companies which specialize in selling your personal information.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49928967]See, that's a really loaded way to frame the question. You're not going to convince me of your opinion if you come out the gates with "you're a fascist".
No, I don't have a problem with the government monitoring communication channels to prevent crime or terrorism. If you don't want your communications seen or read, encrypt your messages in some way, though Im guessing you're worried about the NSA seeing your Gmail or Facebook when you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from companies which specialize in selling your personal information.[/QUOTE]
That's true, that was a stupid way to phrase that, I apologize.
My problem isn't with what I post and make public, it's the stuff that they see that I'm not trying to make public.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.