Year In Communications: NSA Revelations Overshadow Communications Breakthroughs 61
MacRonin writes "Communications news in 2013 was dominated by serial revelations of the National Security Agency's mass collection of data from major Internet companies and mobile carriers, leading to widespread cries of governmental overreach. But those revelations, based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, were accompanied by remarkable advances in wireless communications. The Snowden documents also galvanized new efforts at making the Internet more secure and private. The folks at MIT Technology Review have their year-end rundown."
They have dedicated a special page for them (Score:5, Informative)
But more to the point, have you ever seen any black people who work for the NSA?
Not only they have African Americans who work for NSA, they have set up a special web page for them, and have dedicated a special wall panel to commemorate their contribution, inside the NSA building.
http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/african_americans/ [nsa.gov]
But even more to the point - no matter what color of skin they have, - white, black, and all hues in between - those who work for NSA, if they continue to violate the Constitution of America, they are Traitors to the country !
Re: (Score:1)
Which part of the constitution are they violating? Can you cite the passage or amendment?
Re: (Score:3)
Which part of the constitution are they violating? Can you cite the passage or amendment?
For reasons of national security, that passage must be kept secret.
But you surely can trust the NSA's word about the existence of that passage.
Re:They have dedicated a special page for them (Score:5, Interesting)
Which part of the constitution are they violating? Can you cite the passage or amendment?
First see the intro
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now see Section 3.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The purpose of the nation is freedom. The purpose of the NSA's actions is to oppose freedom. Therefore, those who perpetrate these actions are enemies of the nation, and those who support them are giving them aid; both groups are traitorous and the appropriate remedy is hanging by the neck until dead.
Re:They have dedicated a special page for them (Score:4, Informative)
The purpose of the nation is freedom. The purpose of the NSA's actions is to oppose freedom. Therefore, those who perpetrate these actions are enemies of the nation...
There is no direct connection (despite the Slashdot hivemind's assumptions) between surveillance and oppression. Even merely opposing freedom does not, in itself, make someone an enemy of the United States. In fact, as I recall, there are a few other goals for the country besides just generic liberty, such as "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare". Of course, having to acknowledge multiple goals, which are all interpreted differently by the different branches of government, makes it harder to write vitriolic Slashdot posts calling for killing other humans.
Re:They have dedicated a special page for them (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When a person is incarcerated they lose their privacy.
When a person posts on Slashdot, they send information over the Internet.
Clearly sending information over the Internet does not always mean that one is posting on the Internet. Be careful of begging the question. You'll need to actually prove that losing one's privacy is inherently harmful.
The "right to privacy" may not be spelled out in the constitution but I think it is obvious the government considers taking away a person's privacy to be a form of punishment.
Or it's a necessary part of certain investigations, with a sliding scale of how much privacy one can expect compared to how necessary it is. In fact, many high-profile cases over the past few decades have shown the need f
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are you arguing for? Are you trying to defend the NSA [c2.com]? Do you really want to live in a glass house? Would it bother you [c2.com] if I (or anyone) installed surveillance equipment [c2.com] in every single part of your house [c2.com] with the intention of [c2.com] constantly reviewing all the footage, but not doing anything else with it?
I'm arguing for a logical discussion, rather that one steeped in bias and knee-jerk reactions. To that end, I've taken the liberty of highlighting the fallacious arguments in your statements.
The question of whether it's "inherently harmful" is completely different from the question of whether what the government is doing is constitutional, and anyone [c2.com] with a brain knows that it isn't.
Ewieling's claim is that surveillance is unconstitutional because it's a punishment. However, there are two questions to that claim that need proving: that surveillance is a punishment in itself, and that such a punishment is prohibited by the Constitution. I would accept "harmful" as a substitute for "punishment", but
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now. I might as well kill some time, though.
My goal is to establish the provable facts, not to defend or accuse anyone. By questioning my intent while invoking the NSA's name, you're distracting from the issue in exactly the same manner as a comparison to Hitler. The name now evokes an emotional response, undermining any logical evaluation.
Again, my goal is a logical progression, not anyone's opinion. Asking my personal opinion of the matter is also distracting from the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes [techdirt.com].
Re: (Score:3)
The "right to privacy" may not be spelled out in the constitution
This is why some opposed the Bill of Rights, and why the tenth amendment was passed. To answer the ignorant Electricity Likes Me who thinks the NSA is peachy keen, the answer is "the fourth amendment." My papers and effects are online, and the government does not have the legal authority to inspect them without either my permission or a search warrant signed by a judge. Note the "fishing expeditions" by law enforcement have ALWAYS been condem
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy had nothing to do with the opposition to the Bill of Rights. The main opponents of the Bill of Rights were the Anti-Federalists, who mostly wanted to have the Constitution remain objectionable so they could form a second constitutional convention to rebuild the entire thing. Some Federalists also opposed the Bill of Rights, but on the grounds that it was unnecessary as the states already held independent power.
Privacy didn't really enter the realm of law until the 20th century [umkc.edu]. Prior to that, privac
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly what it means, and that's exactly what was done. Telecom and data companies allowed the NSA to access the information that Americans willingly handed over. Despite your dismissal, it is indeed the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution's applicability to particular situations, and they have not ruled on this one yet. You as an individual do not get to unilaterally declare something unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you see that oppression almost inevitably follows this type of surveillance.
Please provide examples. I'm very curious as to which regime only became oppressive after implementing surveillance. All the history I can recall has shown that oppressive regimes like to use surveillance to enforce their already-oppressive policies, and sometimes enables them to expand those policies, but I don't recall any instances where the surveillance started the oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
you see that more oppression almost inevitably follows this type of surveillance.
Does that make it a little more clear for you?
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th
Possibly more, we don't really know what they've been up to so it's likely they've broken damn near all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The 6th? Really? When did the NSA start a criminal prosecution?
Once that prosecution was brought to an actual trial, who was denied a jury per the 7th?
Of course we must bring up the 10th amendment, because this is Slashdot, where we've forgotten that for the last hundred years of political history, national security has been a responsibility of the whole nation rather than the individual states.
Re: (Score:2)
The 6th? Really? When did the NSA start a criminal prosecution?
Once that prosecution was brought to an actual trial, who was denied a jury per the 7th?
I'm, of course, assuming that they were involved in this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/al-qaeda-in-yemen/relatives-of-americans-killed-in-yemen-drone-strikes-file-suit-against-u-s/ [pbs.org]
which would violate both the 6th and 7th amendments
If you want to argue that they weren't involved, I can't say much. To me it just seems logical that they were.
Of course we must bring up the 10th amendment, because this is Slashdot, where we've forgotten that for the last hundred years of political history, national security has been a responsibility of the whole nation rather than the individual states.
"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption t
Re: (Score:1)
I guess because they were oppressed for so long, they figured out all the in's and out's of doing it to others...
Re: (Score:2)
In the NSA there is no racism, there is clasism. You have the "normal" people that must be watched, herded, manipulated, iied and considered with no rights, of which any vulnerability is exploited, every minor offense is collected for a potential future use, and every hot photo or video is shared for fun [go.com].
In the other hand you have the favored ones that are untouchables, the aligned politicians, CEOs of collaborating companies, good part of the 0.01%, certain foreigners [globalresearch.ca] and people that buy their pertenence
Uh, okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reads like: This bunch of corporate press releases haven't been getting as much attention as we'd like, so we'll mention Snowden, which is what seems to get attention these days, and then proceed to dump a list of the stuff we do care about.
It doesn't seem to be anything that exciting. Yeah, technology marches on. Somebody figuring out a way to get more bandwidth out of a cell tower is normal and expected. And I can't say I care that much since all this would do is to allow me to consume my tiny quota faster.
The more interesting bits about balloons and IETF proposing Tor already got discussed, so not like they got overlooked either..
Re:Uh, okay? (Score:4, Interesting)
I also like how, apparently, we're calling it "mass collection of information", instead of "spying", now.
Re: (Score:3)
well.. according to the usa government it only becomes spying if one accesses the data.. ..for which they have "safeguards" against.
Re: (Score:2)
well the funny thing is that Apple/Google/AT&T/Verizon in USA can do anything they want with the data. aaanyyyything. since due to government defining it as theirs and not the customers(so that it isn't "secure in their" since it is not the customer holding the data..)... they could just sell the data about who you called to anyone they want, though none of them has been so bold yet(or at least haven't gotten caught publicly about it).
Re: (Score:3)
Is amazing how easy is for them to dodge those safeguards [theguardian.com], even if there is no relation in 3th grade with anyone foreigner (what is already pretty hard).
Anyway, this is not just about spying, is also about control, in particular of the US citizens.
Re: (Score:1)
I also like how, apparently, we're calling it "mass collection of information", instead of "spying", now.
A collection of books doesn't equal an education unless you read and understand them.
Re: (Score:1)
So if you're one of those creepy up-skirts dudes, it's all okay until you actually take the film out of your camera and look at it?
Re: (Score:2)
Point, Seumas.
Re: (Score:1)
Finally. All those years of shoe-mirrors has paid off!
Re:Uh, okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really /. has beaten this into the ground. And you make good points on the wording they choose to use about this.
Does anyone honestly believe that million/billion dollar internet companies are going to do anything to make people's privacy secure? It was bad enough they fooled some people with these FBI/NSA letters requesting information, meanwhile they were pretty much just giving these agencies anything and everything they wanted while using this "transparency" report to appear as if people have some sort of freedom from any random invasion.
No, no, no the only thing that is going to happen is the status quo, companies will use PR to mind f**k citizens. Politicians, and Washington in general, will do the same, were already reading stories coming out on how the NSA has been given more wide spread abusive go ahead from the White House. And meanwhile the NSA and other agencies will lock down everything preventing anyone even politicians (tho I think it is a safe bet they do not care anyway) from finding out what secret plans or programs they have, or the next wide spread abuse of power among these spying agencies.
With legalizing Marijuana, we may not end up enjoying it for to much longer, or anything for that matter, this country will have cameras everywhere, facial recognition, almost an immediate police presence because there will be algorithms written into the software/hardware to recognize when you are in a "bad act", thinking about going to a night club or raven, thinking of going out and doing a little drinking? Wrong put your hands on the car, you'll be seeing the judge. Your Honor you see the camera shows this girl is on drugs, and drunk after coming out of this night club, the blood test will prove the presence of !!! and of !!!..
Sorry but it is going to get to that point, it has already started with people being on the "wrong street" at the "wrong time".. People need to get there arrogance out of there ass and realize that while they "think" this would not happen, the fact the this country has continued to do things people didn't "think" possible, we continue to see how wrong we are.
Everyone has something to lose despite the ignorance of thinking they are not a stereo typical "criminal" or "terrorist".
Re: (Score:2)
We've been slowly moving in that direction for quite some time now. Often, when some of those small, individual steps have been noticed and discussed, the discussion tends to (understandably) focus on the declne itself and the problems it brings.
Unfortunately, this almost always ignores another slowly-amplifying aspect of the problem: the gradual conditioning (Pavlov-style) of the people responsible. Each time we - The People - allow abuse of power to go unpunished or a another roadblock placed in the way o
No shit (Score:3)
Google pushed its high-speed fiber and TV service in Kansas City, and expanded elsewhere; evidence emerged that the result was better prices and faster speeds in those markets.
Increased competition leads to better consumer offerings and lower prices.
You don't say.
In general, there is plenty that the dominant Internet providers can do to provide better deals without much effort, she says. Cable companies like Time Warner Cable and Comcast have the technical capacity to speed up service, and also plenty of room to lower prices, given the estimate from one analystâ"Craig Moffet of the Wall Street firm Bernstein Researchâ"that they typically make 97 percent profit margins on Internet services.
In other words: the average consumer is paying the "fuck you" price.
actually (Score:5, Insightful)
the american taxpayer is the owner. the nsa is only an entity that the us taxpayer completely funds and owns - if there were no american taxpayer to provide funds for the nsa, then nothing would be owned. that's the point of the whole snowden protest - beacuse people like you are too blind to realize any true fundamental problems with the system, but instead insist on arguing over stupid shit like which of the elderly rich white men in the usa technically have top secret access to the taxpayers paid for information.
a complete re-haul and transparent oversight of the NSA is needed to redefine your concept of ownership to explicitly state that taxpayers own this information. any attack on the USA should be publicly stated as soon as it's known. oh that's right, all of that is bullshit - the entire organization is corrupt from the NSA to their CIA counterparts. many psy ops have been had to achieve these successes an implant the mind control you've been given to defend an organization such as the nsa. individuals in the military industrial complex need to perpetuate the war myth forever to enrich themselves. these people are protected, but their invincibility breaks when you do not comply. it starts with a change in mentality though, and part of it is not believing the bullshit lie of 'national security'.
the notion that 'national security' can be a scapegoat for anything and everything confidential is now considered unacceptable by the people who pay the bills. now if only the docile , weak minded, enslaved people realize they don't have to comply when someone says "do it for national security!' which has been exposed as a farce. when you state the nsa owns anything, you are literally complying with your own enslavement. because you perpetuate the myth that you have no power, and that only a cabal of rich old guard white men can dictate who enlightened with knowledge and who is not. Slashdot did a good job in sticking with this new idea of thinking - unlike yourself.
Re:Citation needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Excuse me, but Snowden didn't create anything.
Excuse yourself; then go look up "galvanized" and consider meditating upon what the difference is between "creating something" and "galvanizing new efforts". Generally if you want to dispute a claim that wasn't actually made, its best to not quote
Makes the shilling for the surveillance state far less obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No no no, wrong definition, try this one: "To stimulate or shock with an electric current."
Makes so much more sense that way doesn't it?
Overshadowed or overhyped, but not remarkable. (Score:4, Interesting)