4884379
story
Comments: 243 +- News: NSA Email Surveillance Pervasive and Ongoing on Wednesday June 17 2009, @09:16AM
Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday June 17 2009, @09:16AM
from the i'll-happily-inflict-my-inbox-upon-them dept.
from the i'll-happily-inflict-my-inbox-upon-them dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
dkleinsc writes "The NY Times has a piece about work being done by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) and others to curb NSA efforts to read email and Internet traffic. Here's an excerpt: 'Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former NSA analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.'"
Related Stories
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
NSA line eater (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to bring back the NSA line eater?
--
bomb assassinate washington north korea iraq spy poison
afraid to reply because... (Score:4, Funny)
What about spam? (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously... I can't even read ALL my mail. And if I tried, I would probably be infected with 10 Trojans.
Re:What about spam? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What about spam? (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens is that they (NSA) DoS-ing investigative resources. FBI and such have only so many men in the field to check the facts. As a result, the ability (probability) to identify true threats goes way down.
The same goes for other after 9/11 security "improvements" like, for example, indiscriminate "deep background investigation" of immigrants - the queue became so long, that it takes years now (not shitting) to get men from "interesting" countries checked! And I'm not talking about nutcases holed up somewhere in Pakistan mountains - I'm talking about people who already walk the streets of the US!
Too bad we don't know how to imitate free market's ability to optimally allocate resources in rigid government setups...
Parent
Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Insightful)
You got the government you deserve, just like your founders promised. The Executive won't stop this, you know that now - the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in, and he's down with all of the new executive powers. The Congress won't stop this, because you NEGLECTED TO FIRE MOST OF THEM for ignoring such things for years.
Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change. Otherwise, quit the damn whining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop voting for them.
That is no more effective then trying to stop drug crime by say "Stop Buying Drugs" or stopping poor education by saying "Stop Failing Tests".
Even if 1/2 the people stopped voting for democrats or republicans those same democrats and republicans would still win, by a larger magin in fact due to fragmentation between Libitarians, Consitutional, Socialist, Communists, Green, and Independent canidates.
The way to stop it is to PARTICIPATE in the political system rather then just voting or not voting which is the last, and minor step in a long political process.
Voting is just crossing the finish line in the marathon of politics. You wouldn't say that someone who drove to the finish line, got out, and crossed the finish line "participated" in the marathon, no more then someone voting participates in an election.
Get into a party, be active in it, and:
"Be the change you demand rather then hoping for change in others."
Parent
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if your political system was proportional instead of based in electoral circles, there wouldn't be the duopoly of two parties that alternate in power with no significant difference between them.
By giving no chance to the smaller parties you're automatically excluding any innovation that could shake the political system a bit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe if your political system was proportional instead of based in electoral circles, there wouldn't be the duopoly of two parties that alternate in power with no significant difference between them.
That is only for one position in government. A powerful one, yes, but one that would be limited by a Libertarian congress, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bills originate in the House of Represenatives which doesn't involve an electoral college. The US President cannot do a whole lot in actually drafting laws, more so the power of veto is part of the checks and balances in that interplay.
Since the seats in the House are by district there is substantially more control over who is elected due to the local level. Money can't hide the fact your an asshole in politics at that ground level where as in the senate you can pretty much BS your way into office with enou
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And yet we're still left with only the choice of "the elephants' asshole" or "the asses' asshole". It's assholes for everyone, assholes all around. The very nature of the patronage-based parties ensures that non-assholes are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hardly. The reason people put up with the current system is that they believe most people are in favour of it, and they, being reasonable people, have no right to go against the majority. When most people reject the system, giving voter turnout of around 20%, then any government elected by it will clearly be illegitimate, and therefore citizens will feel justified in sitting down to discuss a new system.
You can rarely replace a system by particip
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if 1/2 the people stopped voting for democrats or republicans those same democrats and republicans would still win, by a larger magin in fact due to fragmentation between Libertarians, Consitutional, Socialist, Communists, Green, and Independent candidates.
Actually, what happens is that every time the 3rd parties start to gain traction, one of the major parties adopts some of their platform. This has happened throughout the history of the United States and it's a good thing. So those 3rd parties aren
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a dangerous thing to contemplate "fixing" politics. You have to be careful that the fix results in a full net benefit over the current system. And I fully realise that the current system is as corrupt as hades.
For starters, you need to try to imagine what type of people you're going to attract to public service with your change. Is it the people you want to have running the country, or will it further exclude them, leaving public service only for the power hungry?
I ask this of people who oppose politicians (whether municipal, state/provincial, or federal) getting raises. Or tax-free allowances (which, let's face it, merely means they're getting paid more than it looks). If you pay your councillor such a small pittance than only the independently wealthy or the power-hungry will pursue it, how do you expect to attract those who are well-educated and would do a good job? Those people would rather work for the private sector (whether big corps, startups, or entrepreneurially) where they could make double or triple the money, and not have to reapply for their jobs (often at great personal expense, at least for municipal politicians) every few years (every year or so, it seems, for federal politicians in Canada *sigh*). If, and I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, we paid our politicians at a rate that the caliber of leader we wanted would get if they were in the private sector, do we not think we'd get more good candidates "applying" for the job? Sure, we'd get more power-hungry people, too, but we'd at least have SOME decent candidates, possibly. Whining about their pay rate right now, when we also complain about how stupid our representatives are, seems counterproductive to me.
Similarly, what type of people would we get with term limits on house/senate members? We'd get a lot more people who don't know what they're doing, that much is obvious. That would definitely impede activity in government - though if you're of the opinion that this is a good thing, I'm not going to argue with you (not really my topic here anyway). But, beyond that, who would you get? You'd only get people who think that the pay and the benefits (POWER!) are worth giving up your career for that term limit (everyone assumes they'll not only win, but be re-elected as many times as the law allows). Let's say it's 12 years. Would you give up your career for 12 years to "serve" in government? Would the type of smart, wise person who you'd want to represent you in government be willing to give up his/her career for 12 years? Would they want to take the risk of getting back into their old career? What types of careers would be easy to give up for 12 years and re-enter? Is that the type of person you want in government? (I'd think lawyers would be one such career, as might MBA's... other careers, like IT or research or Engineers or Medical Doctors or the such might not be so easy to get back to, especially when recertification is required.) Think about it. Who would you get? Is that an improvement? If it's merely a wash, it's not worth the turmoil to make the change. I suspect it'd be worse than what we have now. Don't get me wrong - on the face, I like the idea of limiting politicians' careers. But I'm not sure that such a limit would improve government, or make the corruption worse.
Parent
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless he has Haliburton as a sponsor.
Parent
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Informative)
The ability of a common person to influence governmental matters is, as it always has been, very limited.
This is a false statement that people who aren't actually interested in doing the work required to make changes in the organization of their Republic.
American history is full of examples of real changes made by determined groups.
Temperance. (Americans still have a bunch of crazy laws thanks to these folks.)
Suffrage. (A constitutional amendment too! )
Civil rights.
Abortion rights (This battle is still on. The ones that fought for them, and the ones dedicated to taking them away)
So, get off your ass and get to work. Oh wait, I forget where I'm posting this.
Parent
Stop engaging in anti-politics. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any American who complains that they can't change things ought to be totally ashamed of themselves. Despite all of my criticisms of this country, I do keep in mind that it is one of the freest and most open societies that has ever existed. The biggest problem is overcoming propaganda that tells you that you can't do anything.
And no, voting for someone doesn't count. It's just the least you can do. A real democracy is when a bunch of people from a community get together, decide what they would like done, and then elect someone from their group to go do it.
To all the centers of power, this is known as the "crisis of democracy" - when people actually start running their own country. It's their nightmare scenario, and a goal we should all be dedicated to achieving.
Parent
Get off message boards (Score:3, Insightful)
and get on the street and use that shoe leather.
If you want to effect true change you have to put the time and effort in. Politicians rely on APATHY. They know most people will buy whichever person is more effectively packaged and presented to them.
and don't forget the other problem, Congress sucks but my Congressman is one of the few good ones.
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit. You're like the elephant who remains constrained by the tiny piece of rope tied to a stake. If you want to use "I can't afford it" as your rationalization for not being involved in the governance of your community, go ahead and do that, but it is only as much of an obstacle as one thinks it is.
I spent about $750 on a campaign for state legislature... and every evening and weekend from June until October. I didn't spend that time raising money, I spent it talking to my neighbors. In the process, I met a couple of people who are in Congress now. They didn't have any money. I also saw candidates going down in flames to candidates who spent a third of what they did.
I think it is giving up evenings and weekends to do political things that makes good people (especially most here) not want to do it. I mean, my bread beats rubbery chicken at the VFW and Rotary and the circuses are on TV.
Parent
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This situation isn't anything new. The US government has had a program like this since the mid 90's and if you remember right, they abandoned their own software for doing so in favor of commercial software (produced by the hack club cult of the dead cow I think). It was project magic lantern or echelon or something of the sorts.
I'm not sure if this "recent" awareness of the program brings about anything new or any new applications but I believe that it was already settled in the courts where a judge said th
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Orange County, California, which is famous as a bastion of Reagan-style conservatism. In the last general election, my congressman, Ed Royce, outdid his Democratic opponent in fundraising by more than 10 to 1, and won with 67% of the vote. Your prescription is not going to work here in my district. Vote the bum out? If you tell my neighbors that the NSA is reading people's email, they'll probably say that's great, because it's a good way to fight terrorism. My district isn't unusual, either. The reason incumbents in the US almost always get reelected is that we have a two-party system with geographically defined election districts, and party loyalty is highly correlated with geography.
It's a majoritarian fallacy to say that if the minority's rights are violated, the minority should just vote to have them not be violated anymore. The reason we have a constitution is to protect the rights of the minority, even when violating them is a very popular, majority position.
Parent
Re:Oh, quit whining (Score:4, Insightful)
the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in
That's the root of the problem -- people think that BHO is "transformational" because he's a great used car salesman and he happens to be black, but in reality, that's all he is -- a slick used car salesmen who's big on charismatic speeches but woefully short on concrete details, who's selling universal healthcare, an end to the war in Iraq, and all of the other things the Democrats have over-promised during the election and under-delivered -- while every day sinking our country deeper in tremendous debt of levels never before conceived. The Republicans have already proven that they're no better, BTW.
The glaringly obvious answer is to vote for third-party candidates. I don't even care who at this point -- practically any new blood would be welcome. Throw these sons-of-bitches the fuck out of DC and our state and local governments -- both Democrats and Republicans -- and lets see some candidates from other parties in power. Quite frankly, short of a brutal dictatorship, it's pretty hard to imagine fucking things up worse than DC is now doing, on both sides of the aisle.
Parent
SMIME (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SMIME (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:SMIME (Score:5, Funny)
Easy
Step 1. Call your friend, oldspewey and have him install and configure it for you. He LOVES helping his friends out for free.
Step 2. Just give him a piece of pizza when he is done. It is the only thanks he needs.
Step 3. If anything goes wrong with your PC just call him up and bitch. It is obviously something he did to break your computer.
Now where is my $100?
Parent
Re:SMIME (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh, a page from the book of "it's funny because it's true."
I used to be "that guy" ... giving advice, offering to help people configure things, recommending hardware and software, etc. Then I slowly came to realize a few things:
- People don't value the time you spend helping them
- The more dire the warning being delivered, the more people resent hearing your advice
- Nothing ever sinks in. By constantly offering to help people, all that happens is they develop a mindset of dependence. They sort of slide into the belief that computers are so hopelessly complex they will never be able to figure anything out.
I now just quietly accept the notion that most of my friends and family are riddled with trojans, and I assume that anything I send to them is also being sent to a criminal syndicate in Bulgaria.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kidding right?
A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds (if that).
Re:SMIME (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a whole history here but in short, Verisign was started by several ex CIA directors shortly after the Clipper chip program failed. The Clipper chip was an encryption chip designed to handle all encryption. In short the CIA would legally be able to access your keys on the chip. there was a public outcry and the program was shelved. No one expected Mark Shuttleworth to gain such a large portion of the market so rapidly, so they paid him a small fortune to get full control of the market. So basically if you want to rely on personal encryption, use PGP, because certs from Thawte and Verisign are not secure from the prying eyes of government agencies.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mess up a good rant, but you do understand that when you hand off a key to a certificate authority for signing, you only give them the public portion of the key? The same portion everyone who communicates would need in order to encrypt anything?
The CA signs your public key. It's basically a third party that confirms to Alice that Bob uses a particular public key. And if you know the public key is correct, only the owner of the private portion of the key can use it for encryption.
The kind of attack th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can of course set up your own RSA key server. Its pretty easy to do, but that means that you are your own TTP which is fine for internal security, but definitely does not work on a public network for encryption where parties need to be identified.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For web servers, I've always generated my own key pair and submitted the only the public key for a certificate signing request. If the email key pair is generated by a third party, the whole procedure is bogus. Last time I looked at SMIME, the sign up processed caused the browser to generate the key pair so the private key was never sent. If this is no longer the case, the whole concept needs to be redone and the "trusted third parties" should be ashamed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
in my case all my friends have gmail accounts. It's not easily accessible to the government (assuming google's internal traffic is not tapped)
God, please don't tell me you're that naive. "It's not easily accessible to the government"?? It's one simple subpoena away, ffs! Assuming, of course, they don't just "convince" Google to give them real-time access to Google's systems.
Seriously, Google is one massive SPOF. That's the *last* thing you want if your goal is to circumvent government surveillance.
More From The Atlantic (Score:4, Informative)
Here [theatlantic.com].
Four NSA domestic surveillance programs.
My Dearest NSA, (Score:5, Interesting)
My Dearest NSA,
Allow me to use, for the first time in my life, a turn of a phrase that I generally find to be rather repugnant:
If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?
This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it. You scared, little, cowards -- shivering in your pajamas at night wetting your bed because you don't know everything I am thinking, all the time -- have no right place in this, the Founding Fathers' most extraordinary experiment.
You think you are more trustworthy than The Constitution? I do not trust you as much as the average crazy screaming panhandler on the corner, let alone as much as the average free American Citizen. You are too scared to be trusted. Scared people act unpredictably. And certainly I do not trust you as much as what is perhaps the most inspired legal document in history.
You are the threat to the American way of life. Not us. Your cowardice eats away at us, and our great society, like a disease. If you can't handle freedom, move to a master planned community with big gates, or even one of the many authoritarian regimes around the world. But don't shit all over what makes this country great just because you can't handle freedom.
Re:My Dearest NSA, (Score:5, Insightful)
If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?
Because in Iran they'd be facing street protests.
Parent
Re:My Dearest NSA, (Score:5, Insightful)
However one of your assumptions is fading fast. When you state:
> This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it.
This assumes that:
(a) people understand "freedom" as the founding fathers understood it and not merely freedom to consume whatever the talking heads tell us.
(b) people are actually willing to risk their lives for it.
Unfortunately, I think that the transformation of the enlightened Republic to the Idiocracy portrayed in film is well underway. In addition I believe that even those that still value true freedom are increasingly less willing to risk their lives for it. Hell, most aren't even willing to risk their comfort for it. A society that is too comfortable with itself is perfectly setup for golden handcuffs.
Ironically, in Iran right now, people actually ARE putting themselves in harms way to protest apparent fraud on the part of the executive.
I sympathise 100% with what you've written but sadly I'm convinced that its almost too late for the republic to be saved without "refreshing the tree of liberty". The sad part is that a lot of people would read your post and wonder why you're over-reacting. They think of "Democracy" and "Freedom" as mere trademarks associated with the US of A. Meanwhile, every pillar of the constitution is under attack and while some are noticing, very few are standing up.
Wake up people! Look at what's happening in Iran - the lesson is this: no matter how powerless you think you are, governments of all persuasions fear nothing more than a populace aroused to anger. To quote Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever h
Solution: PGP (Score:5, Insightful)
sure the NSA can probably crack PGP, but if every one used it, the NSA would not have the capacity to crack every message, forcing them to target communication, which is what they should be doing in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which of our former classmates and colleagues ...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately this, and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it can't be undone. All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state. We are no longer free, ladies and gentlemen.
new email sig (Score:5, Funny)
Email was never secure to begin with... (Score:4, Informative)
Remember, email is sent in cleartext, unless it's encrypted, which most of us don't actually do.
Re:Government investigating Government? (Score:4, Funny)
"Oh wait, someone is knocking at the door...
MiB: Pizza man!
AC: [peers out peephole] Where is the pizza?
MiB: In our awesome van! Come on out and get it...
AC: Well, I do like pizza and vans.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That just isn't a practical answer to passive scanning, because usually you'll never know it happened.
If someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, you know that something happened ("hey, where's my computer?!") and can investigate, call the cops, etc. The law might end up getting enforced.
If you live in a glass house and someone with a telescope is peeking through your walls, you