I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
It's been reported for many years now that the US has direct access to cell phone data and the actual contents of the calls through the data collection rooms that were installed in every major telcom during the Bush II years. Any traffic on smartphones that isn't encrypted is supposedly captured in this way, so that would include texts, emails etc., that were being sent as plain text which would include a huge amount of stuff.
I think this must be what he is talking about. It might even be why Apple started insisting on doing encrypted communications around the same time.
And which country do you suggest? Most spy even more on it's citizens than the U.S does.
Sorry, but this is just the opposite of true. China maybe, a few other places ... the UK does about as much as the USA, but in fact most countries don't spy on their citizens.
The USA didn't do it on any kind of scale until ... George Bush the Second came into power. Since it violates the constitution three ways to Sunday, it's generally been avoided up until now.
Apparently the much vaunted "Constitution" that the Americans have been wiping in everyones faces since the 1700's isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and at the first site of trouble (terrorists! Oh NO!!!), it's thrown out the window never to return.
Apple is quite obviously not "a spy agency acting on behalf of the government."
Also, the "dirty work" the government is doing is mostly routine law enforcement along with some efforts to stop terrorist plots.
There is not even a suggestion that the "government" is plotting to use clandestine technology to persecute some group of citizens. That's what the banks do, with immunity.
Never mind the reporter who's computer was tampered with recently as well as several other cases that have come up in recent months...
It's attitudes like this that show the real issue, no matter what Apple says, some folks will think they are lying. After all why would the newspapers write something that isn't 100% true. They are newspapers after all, they don't deal in rumor and speculation. They never have sources that lie or tell partial truths for a particular agenda. Etc. you can always trust everything you read in the newspapers.
To be fair, if we laud Apple for releasing these figures, then we should also mention Facebook and Microsoft, too. Google and Yahoo are expected to release their numbers soon, I believe.
Lest we forget, these companies joined efforts in pushing the government to allow them to announce the data.
While the possibility of a mass conspiracy exists, we should ask ourselves why these companies wouldn't just keep silent rather than trip over each other to deny the Washington Post and Guardian reports. When virtually every major player in this game is involved, the risk of losing customers is minimal. So what do these companies have to gain in making any statements at all?
Just examine the responses/statements of the carriers? What responses and statements? Exactly ...
I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It's been reported for many years now that the US has direct access to cell phone data and the actual contents of the calls through the data collection rooms that were installed in every major telcom during the Bush II years. Any traffic on smartphones that isn't encrypted is supposedly captured in this way, so that would include texts, emails etc., that were being sent as plain text which would include a huge amount of stuff.
I think this must be what he is talking about. It might even be why Apple started insisting on doing encrypted communications around the same time.
I don't see how either of you can prove your point. We are talking about covert operations after all. Covert as in you are not supposed to learn about it and will never, ever really find out. So why agree or disagree with each other?
Being of a suspicious turn of mind, my first question is, is this 4-5000 requests with 9-10000 accounts in total or 9-10000 accounts in each request? It is not entirely clear from the syntax, and it makes quite a large difference to the total number. I don't think that American readers can fully appreciate the outrage this level of snooping is causing in places not in the US. It is a much worse theft and breach of trust than buying Manhattan from the indigenous population for a bunch of glass beads. Let's not even go to the arrogance of complaining about Chinese spying, though of course that's not great either. Cloud storage? Nein Danke.
If your constitution is to be so easily ignored, without open discussion or democratic debate, why have it at all? Just replace it with one sentence:
'The Government shall have the right to do whatever it pleases for whatever reasons it thinks appropriate.'
All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Sending texts and picture and stuff over the internet to apple or facebook or google is not encrypted data, thus very easy to capture and see what you are doing. ...
Remember, iMessage is encrypted both directions.
Facebook is a gold mine for personal data...that thing is just one big DUH.
Google doesn't sell us anything with their search engine so how are they a monopoly? Last I checked Bing is gaining popularity.
Personally I would never trust trojan marketing campaigns. Sadly Microsoft are the most underhand tech company on the planet. That stops me using them now. They have too little integrity.
To be fair, if we laud Apple for releasing these figures, then we should also mention Facebook and Microsoft, too. Google and Yahoo are expected to release their numbers soon, I believe.
Lest we forget, these companies joined efforts in pushing the government to allow them to announce the data.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">While the possibility of a mass conspiracy exists, we should ask ourselves why these companies wouldn't just keep silent rather than trip over each other to deny the Washington Post and Guardian reports. When virtually every major player in this game is involved, the risk of losing customers is minimal. So what do these companies have to gain in making any statements at all? </span>
Just examine the responses/statements of the carriers? What responses and statements? Exactly ...
Google has released these numbers for a few years now. They were one of the first, if not the first to do so. Just search Google Transparency Report. But what Google and Twitter really want to do, but the government has not permitted so far, is to further break down the requests to differentiate between National Security requests and those made by local authorities. Facebook is happy with the aggregated reporting while Microsoft, Yahoo and apparently Apple don't necessarily disagree with reporting lumped together numbers rounded off to the nearest thousand which is fairly useless. FWIW Apple's disclosure is the same format as Facebook's and the first time they've ever released a report on government data requests AFAIK.
Google has released these numbers for a few years now. They were one of the first, if not the first to do so. Just search Google Transparency Report. But what Google and Twitter really want to do, but the government has not permitted so far, is to further break down the requests to differentiate between National Security requests and those made by local authorities. Facebook is happy with the aggregated reporting while Microsoft, Yahoo and apparently Apple don't necessarily disagree with reporting lumped together numbers rounded off to the nearest thousand which is fairly useless. FWIW Apple's disclosure is the same format as Facebook's and the first time they've ever released a report on government data requests AFAIK.
This is simply misinformation. Snowden talks of two levels of intercept: "Incidental" and "Warranted". In the first instance it would appear the NSA can and does simply harvest all telecoms/internet data from Apple, etc., servers and store it for their own use (or supply that data to GCHQ if requested). Warranted data retrieval is merely that obtained by a compliant Judge rubber-stamping a formatted request.
I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
That PowerPoint slide doesn't have to be interpreted that way. As to the numbers being similar: why ever wouldn't they since law enforcement would do a widespread request across services looking for all the digital footptints of the person at issue.
This is simply misinformation. Snowden talks of two levels of intercept: "Incidental" and "Warranted". In the first instance it would appear the NSA can and does simply harvest all telecoms/internet data from Apple, etc., servers and store it for their own use (or supply that data to GCHQ if requested). Warranted data retrieval is merely that obtained by a compliant Judge rubber-stamping a formatted request.
There's already been several steps back in Snowden and/or press reports on how the NSA is accessing data. First it was direct cooperation by Apple/MS/Google with the Prism project. Then one step back to Apple/MS/Google cooperating in direct access to data even if they were unaware of PRISM. Then another step back where it became indirect cooperation with the NSA installing boxes with server access in Apple/MS/Google data centers. Now that's being stepped back too. Eventually the story may get washed around enough that only the truth of the matter is left. . . or not. My bet is we'll never know the extent of backdoor cooperation if there is any.
There's already been several steps back in Snowden and/or press reports on how the NSA is accessing data. First it was direct cooperation by Apple/MS/Google with the Prism project. Then one step back to Apple/MS/Google cooperating in direct access to data even if they were unaware of PRISM. Then another step back where it became indirect cooperation with the NSA installing boxes with server access in Apple/MS/Google data centers. Now that's being stepped back too. Eventually the story may get washed around enough that only the truth of the matter is left. . . or not. My bet is we'll never know the extent of backdoor cooperation if there is any.
I have read of no retracted account of data harvesting. It is direct from the servers (whether or not the complicit companies knew or otherwise). Snowden has not redefined his original meaning of entire data capture from source.
I have read of no retracted account of data harvesting. It is direct from the servers (whether or not the complicit companies knew or otherwise). Snowden has not redefined his original meaning of entire data capture from source.
Here's a riddle for you:
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need and whenever they need it, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be asked for to get Apple/MS/Google cooperation in supplying the data.?
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be requested?
So it doesn't get thrown out of court. They collect the alleged evidence then get permission after the fact.
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be requested?
There is a world of difference between surveillance and criminal proceedings. It may be that warrants are requested where a crime is obviously being or is in the process of being investigated/committed and data that is being surveilled in case of a criminal or subversive suspicion.
And the concluding sentence of the article you pointed to was:
"The reality is that if NSA surveillance is indeed overstepping its bounds, those companies are victims, not willing participants."
Neither the article nor that sentence undermines the direct unilateral data retrieval procedures the NSA are accused of implementing to gather and store data.
Why is all the text in the story showing with a strike through? It only appears when you click view all comments and not on the main story link. I thought the story was being edited or changed.
Why is all the text in the story showing with a strike through? It only appears when you click view all comments and not on the main story link. I thought the story was being edited or changed.
The original text of the article had a bracket s bracket. Importing it as is cause the remaining to be strikethrough in the forums reader. Speaking of, does anyone know how to use brackets without causing this effect? I've used double brackets in the past but it looks like crap.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red
I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
It's been reported for many years now that the US has direct access to cell phone data and the actual contents of the calls through the data collection rooms that were installed in every major telcom during the Bush II years. Any traffic on smartphones that isn't encrypted is supposedly captured in this way, so that would include texts, emails etc., that were being sent as plain text which would include a huge amount of stuff.
I think this must be what he is talking about. It might even be why Apple started insisting on doing encrypted communications around the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And which country do you suggest? Most spy even more on it's citizens than the U.S does.
Sorry, but this is just the opposite of true. China maybe, a few other places ... the UK does about as much as the USA, but in fact most countries don't spy on their citizens.
The USA didn't do it on any kind of scale until ... George Bush the Second came into power. Since it violates the constitution three ways to Sunday, it's generally been avoided up until now.
Apparently the much vaunted "Constitution" that the Americans have been wiping in everyones faces since the 1700's isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and at the first site of trouble (terrorists! Oh NO!!!), it's thrown out the window never to return.
Never mind the reporter who's computer was tampered with recently as well as several other cases that have come up in recent months...
/S?
To be fair, if we laud Apple for releasing these figures, then we should also mention Facebook and Microsoft, too. Google and Yahoo are expected to release their numbers soon, I believe.
Lest we forget, these companies joined efforts in pushing the government to allow them to announce the data.
While the possibility of a mass conspiracy exists, we should ask ourselves why these companies wouldn't just keep silent rather than trip over each other to deny the Washington Post and Guardian reports. When virtually every major player in this game is involved, the risk of losing customers is minimal. So what do these companies have to gain in making any statements at all?
Just examine the responses/statements of the carriers? What responses and statements? Exactly ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red
I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It's been reported for many years now that the US has direct access to cell phone data and the actual contents of the calls through the data collection rooms that were installed in every major telcom during the Bush II years. Any traffic on smartphones that isn't encrypted is supposedly captured in this way, so that would include texts, emails etc., that were being sent as plain text which would include a huge amount of stuff.
I think this must be what he is talking about. It might even be why Apple started insisting on doing encrypted communications around the same time.
I don't see how either of you can prove your point. We are talking about covert operations after all. Covert as in you are not supposed to learn about it and will never, ever really find out. So why agree or disagree with each other?
Being of a suspicious turn of mind, my first question is, is this 4-5000 requests with 9-10000 accounts in total or 9-10000 accounts in each request? It is not entirely clear from the syntax, and it makes quite a large difference to the total number. I don't think that American readers can fully appreciate the outrage this level of snooping is causing in places not in the US. It is a much worse theft and breach of trust than buying Manhattan from the indigenous population for a bunch of glass beads. Let's not even go to the arrogance of complaining about Chinese spying, though of course that's not great either. Cloud storage? Nein Danke.
If your constitution is to be so easily ignored, without open discussion or democratic debate, why have it at all? Just replace it with one sentence:
'The Government shall have the right to do whatever it pleases for whatever reasons it thinks appropriate.'
All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
...
Sending texts and picture and stuff over the internet to apple or facebook or google is not encrypted data, thus very easy to capture and see what you are doing. ...
Remember, iMessage is encrypted both directions.
Facebook is a gold mine for personal data...that thing is just one big DUH.
Hey, NSA. I accidentally deleted an important email. Can you send me a copy? ;-)
Seems you need a doctors certificate for AlzeihmersQuote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Google doesn't sell us anything with their search engine so how are they a monopoly? Last I checked Bing is gaining popularity.
Personally I would never trust trojan marketing campaigns. Sadly Microsoft are the most underhand tech company on the planet. That stops me using them now. They have too little integrity.
Google has released these numbers for a few years now. They were one of the first, if not the first to do so. Just search Google Transparency Report. But what Google and Twitter really want to do, but the government has not permitted so far, is to further break down the requests to differentiate between National Security requests and those made by local authorities. Facebook is happy with the aggregated reporting while Microsoft, Yahoo and apparently Apple don't necessarily disagree with reporting lumped together numbers rounded off to the nearest thousand which is fairly useless. FWIW Apple's disclosure is the same format as Facebook's and the first time they've ever released a report on government data requests AFAIK.
http://allthingsd.com/20130614/twitter-backs-google-says-facebook-made-mistake-in-data-disclosure-deal-with-feds/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/google-and-twitter-arent-impressed-facebooks-disclosure-dump/66270/
Edward Snowden is currently holding a Live on-line interview with readers of The Guardian @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower?commentpage=1
11.00Hrs ET 16.00Hrs GMT for around 1.5Hrs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Google has released these numbers for a few years now. They were one of the first, if not the first to do so. Just search Google Transparency Report. But what Google and Twitter really want to do, but the government has not permitted so far, is to further break down the requests to differentiate between National Security requests and those made by local authorities. Facebook is happy with the aggregated reporting while Microsoft, Yahoo and apparently Apple don't necessarily disagree with reporting lumped together numbers rounded off to the nearest thousand which is fairly useless. FWIW Apple's disclosure is the same format as Facebook's and the first time they've ever released a report on government data requests AFAIK.
http://allthingsd.com/20130614/twitter-backs-google-says-facebook-made-mistake-in-data-disclosure-deal-with-feds/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/google-and-twitter-arent-impressed-facebooks-disclosure-dump/66270/
This is simply misinformation. Snowden talks of two levels of intercept: "Incidental" and "Warranted". In the first instance it would appear the NSA can and does simply harvest all telecoms/internet data from Apple, etc., servers and store it for their own use (or supply that data to GCHQ if requested). Warranted data retrieval is merely that obtained by a compliant Judge rubber-stamping a formatted request.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red
I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
That PowerPoint slide doesn't have to be interpreted that way. As to the numbers being similar: why ever wouldn't they since law enforcement would do a widespread request across services looking for all the digital footptints of the person at issue.
There's already been several steps back in Snowden and/or press reports on how the NSA is accessing data. First it was direct cooperation by Apple/MS/Google with the Prism project. Then one step back to Apple/MS/Google cooperating in direct access to data even if they were unaware of PRISM. Then another step back where it became indirect cooperation with the NSA installing boxes with server access in Apple/MS/Google data centers. Now that's being stepped back too. Eventually the story may get washed around enough that only the truth of the matter is left. . . or not. My bet is we'll never know the extent of backdoor cooperation if there is any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's already been several steps back in Snowden and/or press reports on how the NSA is accessing data. First it was direct cooperation by Apple/MS/Google with the Prism project. Then one step back to Apple/MS/Google cooperating in direct access to data even if they were unaware of PRISM. Then another step back where it became indirect cooperation with the NSA installing boxes with server access in Apple/MS/Google data centers. Now that's being stepped back too. Eventually the story may get washed around enough that only the truth of the matter is left. . . or not. My bet is we'll never know the extent of backdoor cooperation if there is any.
I have read of no retracted account of data harvesting. It is direct from the servers (whether or not the complicit companies knew or otherwise). Snowden has not redefined his original meaning of entire data capture from source.
Then you missed some of the news. The story has gone thru a few changes since it originally broke a few days ago.
http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-prism-story-so-hopelessly-wrong-7000016822/
Here's a riddle for you:
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need and whenever they need it, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be asked for to get Apple/MS/Google cooperation in supplying the data.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Then you missed some of the news. The story has gone thru a few changes since it originally broke a few days ago.
http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-prism-story-so-hopelessly-wrong-7000016822/
Here's a riddle for you:
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be requested?
So it doesn't get thrown out of court. They collect the alleged evidence then get permission after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Here's a riddle for you:
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be requested?
There is a world of difference between surveillance and criminal proceedings. It may be that warrants are requested where a crime is obviously being or is in the process of being investigated/committed and data that is being surveilled in case of a criminal or subversive suspicion.
And the concluding sentence of the article you pointed to was:
"The reality is that if NSA surveillance is indeed overstepping its bounds, those companies are victims, not willing participants."
Neither the article nor that sentence undermines the direct unilateral data retrieval procedures the NSA are accused of implementing to gather and store data.
Why is all the text in the story showing with a strike through? It only appears when you click view all comments and not on the main story link. I thought the story was being edited or changed.
The original text of the article had a bracket s bracket. Importing it as is cause the remaining to be strikethrough in the forums reader. Speaking of, does anyone know how to use brackets without causing this effect? I've used double brackets in the past but it looks like crap.