Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Snowden - Europe complicit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
    We should all be concerned with how far and deep NSA surveillance goes. They could, of course, inform us, but then their methods wouldn't be a secret anymore.
    They could secretly inform you ;)

    In the debate over NSA's prying, we lack the information we need to make a judgement, and a great many people, some very intelligent, are jumping to conclusions. For example, no one knows whether NSA surveillance goes farther than connecting the dots on phone calls and internet traffic or whether it is recording content. Sometimes it seems to me NSA is being berated for the modern version of a police stakeout, watching who comes and goes. And if that is bad, how bad is it that the police cruise the streets and walk beats watching us for unusual behavior without any inkling that we're going to commit a crime?
    Then why having both NSA and the police doing the same job? On top of that FBI, too?

    Well, anyway, if the NSA is recording my calls, it might come in handy if I ever need a record of a phone call I had with a client who now claims he didn't say what he said.:)
    What you offer for that recording?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Doktor View Post

      Then why having both NSA and the police doing the same job? On top of that FBI, too?
      The three examples you cite are all under different jurisdictional areas

      state, domestic and national security.

      Police have no capacity to conduct INT related roles beyond the province of their remit - and they see a much smaller picture but which can be used by the FBI or NSA to inform their own INT responsibilities

      I seriously struggle with some of the commentary I see on the web where people gravitate between outright indignation and moral outrage at the fact that they are probably part of a broader INT harvest - seriously, what version of wally world are they living in to think that state managed INT services are not grazing in various paddocks and looking at what people do.

      Some of the tools that I have used for Govt work were originally commercial products and developed 20 years prior to getting picked up or finessed by various Govt bodies - in fact I'd argue that the majority of bespoke Govt INT software can be traced back to 4-6 commercial products.

      I've attended a few unclass briefings on commercial data mining solutions where vendors were trying to flog off their gear and sell the capability to Govt, these are uncontrolled solutions where there is limited oversight and no govt management of how companies might use them beyond the avowed "we just want to see what deodorant they might buy because their internet traffic shows that they like hiking, camping and shooting" etc .....

      the general public are basically illiterate on how much information they give away every minute of the day and how they populate numerous databases harvested by numerous companies and where said data is onsold for use by various entities for other purposes

      when I see how much people willingly transport what they think is privileged material onto the WWW and then you see them getting hot and flustered about what Govts are doing - then I do seriously question the moral outrage exhibited .....
      Linkeden:
      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        They could secretly inform you ;)
        lol...how do you know they haven't? :)


        Then why having both NSA and the police doing the same job? On top of that FBI, too?
        Why not? Some police watch radio waves and some watch pedestrians and drivers and chase criminals.


        What you offer for that recording?
        Forget what I would offer. Let's just say NSA responds to my request in full honestly. This is what I would expect. "Jad, you placed a call from 800-123-4567 at 4:10 p.m. on November 5, 2013, to 866-234-5678. The call lasted 12:10 minutes. We did not record your conversation."
        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
          Forget what I would offer. Let's just say NSA responds to my request in full honestly. This is what I would expect. "Jad, you placed a call from 800-123-4567 at 4:10 p.m. on November 5, 2013, to 866-234-5678. The call lasted 12:10 minutes. We did not record your conversation."
          The variation on this is (and I am going to be deliberately broad here) is that unless there is a direct threat issue and warrants/orders are already in place, then if they are harvesting your comms, then the data management systems are not going to display your entire phone number anyway

          eg your phone number might be 12345678, the system might display 1234#### - and for the final 4 digits to be retrieved would then require a court order/warrant to be issued - and for the presiding judge to be satisfied that full disclosure of that number to conduct further investigation is warranted.. - so unless there is already a specific investigation underway, there will be nothing that says that the phone number is yours etc.....

          unfort most of the internet hysteria about how surveillance occurs is based on watching too many Jason Bourne movies.... :)
          Linkeden:
          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            Enemy of the State, Enemy of the State, bro....

            Comment


            • #21
              Indian take on the NSA spying.

              Angela Merkel was phone tapped by the US | My Faking News

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                I would be taking that article with a tonne of salt thrown over the shoulder...
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                  I would be taking that article with a tonne of salt thrown over the shoulder...
                  Lol! Look at the url address and you will see what I am talking about.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                    Lol! Look at the url address and you will see what I am talking about.
                    I realise that - the worry is that some idiot will be quoting it as fact and and as a conspiracy argument.

                    There's a shortage of critical thinking when it comes to things like this in the broader media community
                    Linkeden:
                    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                    http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                      The variation on this is (and I am going to be deliberately broad here) is that unless there is a direct threat issue and warrants/orders are already in place, then if they are harvesting your comms, then the data management systems are not going to display your entire phone number anyway

                      eg your phone number might be 12345678, the system might display 1234#### - and for the final 4 digits to be retrieved would then require a court order/warrant to be issued - and for the presiding judge to be satisfied that full disclosure of that number to conduct further investigation is warranted.. - so unless there is already a specific investigation underway, there will be nothing that says that the phone number is yours etc.....

                      unfort most of the internet hysteria about how surveillance occurs is based on watching too many Jason Bourne movies.... :)
                      In which case, NSA would reply that they had no record at all of my phone call. :)

                      What you say sounds right. But as long as the capability to get the full phone number and listen in to calls rests with NSA, enough people will keep on bitching and moaning about it that a constituent-conscious Congress may give in and tie NSA's hands permanently.
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                        In which case, NSA would reply that they had no record at all of my phone call. :)

                        technically they don't under the model I've outlined

                        what would normally happen is that additional software might be doing the pattern matching and identifying that certain numbers always seem to be associated with specific events, that might be the trigger to go and seek a warrant and get access to the complete number so as to form up on the INT matching thats occurred to that point.

                        the judge sees the evidence, agrees that there is a relationship emerging and signs off on release. etc etc.....
                        Linkeden:
                        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          lol...how do you know they haven't? :)
                          If I tell you...

                          Why not? Some police watch radio waves and some watch pedestrians and drivers and chase criminals.
                          My point was does NSA have the mandate to it? On US soil and more over on US citizens.

                          Forget what I would offer. Let's just say NSA responds to my request in full honestly. This is what I would expect. "Jad, you placed a call from 800-123-4567 at 4:10 p.m. on November 5, 2013, to 866-234-5678. The call lasted 12:10 minutes. We did not record your conversation."
                          What's the point in that type of data mining? They know there was a contact, they don't know who was on both sides and more over what was the talk about.
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                            What's the point in that type of data mining? They know there was a contact, they don't know who was on both sides and more over what was the talk about.
                            the point is that you can't look at events in isolation

                            pattern matching is about establishing indirect and direct events, you'd be surprised at what appears to be distant association finally forms up to show a more coherent picture.

                            you can establish the conversation if the pattern matching shows enough cause to get a warrant. at that stage its value helps people either keep or discard and thus determine whether there is a need to continue on

                            JADs phone call in isolation can present as meaningless - everything around it in the last 24hrs may create a different complexion
                            Linkeden:
                            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              My point was does NSA have the mandate to it? On US soil and more over on US citizens.
                              It's complicated. Bush expanded NSA mandate to include US citizens and it has since evolved.

                              A constitutional test is in the making. This article might interest you: U.S. Tells Suspect It Used NSA Surveillance Program in Criminal Case - WSJ.com
                              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                                It's complicated. Bush expanded NSA mandate to include US citizens and it has since evolved.
                                It was also about cutting down the tribalism which was impacting on sharing if not outright withholding useful INT between agencies.
                                Linkeden:
                                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X