How far should the Dragnet reach.

  • News
  • Thread starter nsaspook
  • Start date
  • #1
nsaspook
Science Advisor
949
1,398
With the news leaking to the public of several surveillance programs targeting US citizens have we reached the limits of trust in what we allow our government to do when trying to stop the "bad guys".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?hp

My main objection is not that these programs exist but their level of secrecy and scope invites abuse without real public oversight to decide if it's in the best interest of the people of this country.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Evo
Mentor
23,156
2,808
I'm not worried. If they monitored me they'd see recipes and gardening advice and pictures of dogs and kittens dressed up in funny costumes. Let them look all they want!
 
  • #3
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,885
2,382
I'm OK with it as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

sticker,375x360.png
 
  • #4
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,991
4,810
I am against anything which makes it so hard to live because you are in fear that you may slip up and accidentally break some law. Hopefully it doesn't reach that point.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #5
jhae2.718
Gold Member
1,161
20
...
*looks at username*

trap.jpg


On a serious note, if the NSA is monitoring domestic communications they are breaking the law, and that's a problem.

And by "if", I mean "they have the capability to do so so they are doing it".
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #7
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685
My main objection is not that these programs exist but their level of secrecy and scope invites abuse without real public oversight to decide if it's in the best interest of the people of this country.
I have qualms that these programs exist at all. The government needs a warrant to come into my house, a subpoena to look at my U.S. bank accounts. I don't have anything to hide now. That's irrelevant. Those protections exist to protect people who do have something to hide and to protect people from an overzealous government, which can manufacture a crime out of nothing. (Besides, I probably would have something to hide should an extreme left or extreme right political group get control of our government.) I'm glad those protections exist.

Except they don't exist. The Patriot Act has severely eroded our individual rights. At some point we and our elected officials have to realize that security and freedom are inherently in conflict. IMO, we as a nation have gone overboard on security.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #8
jim mcnamara
Mentor
4,066
2,528
@D H

Were you around in the 1950's? My Dad (Washington Post) covered the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Joseph McCarthy's actions on the Government Operations Committee in the Senate. Lots of people were in favor of this stuff.

This new attempt at security is not different, just faster because of the speed of data access. IMO: anytime a politician can generate paranoia he/she can probably benefit from it. It is the rest of us who receive the detriment. As I understand this current bruhaha, it was engendered by court decisions rendered under sections of the Patriot Act. Hmm, name of that law sounds like something akin to what the name HUAC was trying to convey.
 
  • #9
724
0
I have qualms that these programs exist at all. The government needs a warrant to come into my house, a subpoena to look at my U.S. bank accounts. I don't have anything to hide now. That's irrelevant. Those protections exist to protect people who do have something to hide and to protect people from an overzealous government, which can manufacture a crime out of nothing. (Besides, I probably would have something to hide should an extreme left or extreme right political group get control of our government.) I'm glad those protections exist.

Except they don't exist. The Patriot Act has severely eroded our individual rights. At some point we and our elected officials have to realize that security and freedom are inherently in conflict. IMO, we as a nation have gone overboard on security.
Seriosly. I mean, has it been too long for people to remember the IRS targetting the Tea Party? (Note: I *don't* support the Tea Party. But I do support their right to exercise their rights. There's a big differece.) That is proof alone that the government has no qualms with violating (or chilling, in the case of the TP) rights of people/groups it doesn't like, whether they are protected under the Constitution or not. And you want me to trust you to read and listen to everything I *ever* say? How can anyone trust that? There's no guarentee of what is okay and what isn't. It's simply a function of who's in power.
 
  • #10
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,879
TylerH said:
Seriosly. I mean, has it been too long for people to remember the IRS targetting the Tea Party?
well, I'm old enough to remember when they had Nixon on tape saying with glee: "We'll use the IRS [and other agencies] to harass our enemies!".
That childish behavior is a symptom of a president who just isn't president material.
If we are there again, well, the nation has survived it before.

From spook's NYTimes link:
The confirmation of the classified program came just hours after government officials acknowledged a separate seven-year effort to sweep up records of telephone calls inside the United States. Together, the unfolding revelations opened a window into the growth of government surveillance that began under the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has clearly been embraced and even expanded under the Obama administration.
What I want to know is if the NSA has all this information why don't they let some other agencies use it to go after these &^E#%M^><~F@##$ telemarketers.
What with the $10,000 fine for each 'spoofed caller id' call they could pay off the debt in about a week.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #11
724
0
well, I'm old enough to remember when they had Nixon on tape saying with glee: "We'll use the IRS [and other agencies] to harass our enemies!".
That childish behavior is a symptom of a president who just isn't president material.
If we are there again, well, the nation has survived it before.
I was referring to the IRS targetting Tea Party organizations with harder reviews to grant them non-profit status (which came out a few weeks ago), which chills their right to freely associate and gather funds, by taxing the funds they raise for a protected reason.

What I want to know is if the NSA has all this information why don't they let some other agencies use it to go after these &^E#%M^><~F@##$ telemarketers.
What with the $10,000 fine for each 'spoofed caller id' call they could pay off the debt in about a week.
Lol. Okay, we can make an exception. Who needs rights when you can get rid of telemarketers? :P
 
  • #12
I have a big interest in history and world politics, and now when i look at the US they denounce other countries for monitoring and censoring the internet and right of others but are some of the worst offenders themselves. Sometimes I will end up worrying that just in a Google search that the government doesn't like could now get me arrested if things went far enough but most people don't seem to care now and it saddens me. I now always come to this quote when I more news on the issue:

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776
 
  • #13
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,130
2,577
I'm not worried. If they monitored me they'd see recipes and gardening advice and pictures of dogs and kittens dressed up in funny costumes. Let them look all they want!
That's the way I see it. Though if hackers break into the NSA, and get ahold of all the blasphemous things I say publicly on Facebook, and leak it to Monsanto, I'm screwed.

And they are going to take away my "Progressive Democrat" card if it is ever leaked that I referenced the following this morning:

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
Logical progression:
Roosevelt liked Mussolini
Mussolini was a fascist
Roosevelt was a fascist
Roosevelt was a democrat
OmCheeto is a democrat
OmCheeto is a fascist
Fascists are bad
OmCheeto is bad
Obama kills bad people with drones
OmCheeto dies in a drone strike
OmCheeto stupidly pushes the "Submit Reply" button

:eek:
 
  • #14
nsaspook
Science Advisor
949
1,398
The CGHQ dragnet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

The categories of material have included fraud, drug trafficking and terrorism, but the criteria at any one time are secret and are not subject to any public debate. GCHQ's compliance with the certificates is audited by the agency itself, but the results of those audits are also secret.

An indication of how broad the dragnet can be was laid bare in advice from GCHQ's lawyers, who said it would be impossible to list the total number of people targeted because "this would be an infinite list which we couldn't manage".

There is an investigatory powers tribunal to look into complaints that the data gathered by GCHQ has been improperly used, but the agency reassured NSA analysts in the early days of the programme, in 2009: "So far they have always found in our favour"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gchq-spy-world

But there appears to be some nervousness about Tempora. In a paper written for National Security Agency (NSA) analysts entitled A Guide to Using Internet Buffers at GCHQ, the author notes: "[Tempora] represents an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ's special source data.

"As large-scale buffering of metadata and content represent a new concept for GCHQ's exploitation of the internet, GCHQ's legal and policy officers are understandably taking a careful approach to their access and use."

So how did GCHQ secure the legal authority for setting up Tempora, and what safeguards are in place for sharing the intelligence with the Americans? According to the documents, the British government used Ripa to get taps on to the fibre-optic cables.

These cables carry internet traffic in and out of the country and contain details of millions of emails and web searches. The information from these cables went straight into the Tempora storage programme.

In one presentation, which appeared to be for US analysts from the NSA, GCHQ explained: "Direct access to large volumes of unselected SSE data [is] collected under a Ripa warrant."
I'm impressed with the scope of information Snowden managed to steal about these operations.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
13
0
Prism is vastly ineffective and will never fully accomplish what it is intended to do, assuming that it is intended to intercept communications between "cyber criminals" and terrorists and the like by monitoring social media outlets and VOIP services. The truth is, the NSA is very competent and is monitoring these outlets for a reason. People really do pass sensitive information via Facebook and twitter- in plain sight- via steganography.

Assuming you belonged to an anonymous sect "arch angle", for instance, you would pass information to other sect members by embedding messages like " OP Bank Of America- DDoS 0800 CST. IRC channel 145 password: Schema" into a picture of a cat or something that seems out of place and post it on your wall- post it on your sect members wall or in a private group and then hash tag it with # arch angle and broadcast it on twitter. The same applies to videos. Those pretentious videos of anonymous members dawning guy fawkes masks are laden with embedded messages designed to organize the various sects for ops. The NSA knows this, but they don't have the resources to monitor every single wonky photo or video on the Internet. They don't have the resources, the man power or the funding. And besides, even if they did, real hackers would find another way. They are the some of the craftiest people on the planet; hackers built the internet.

You may think it is silly to monitor social media outlets, but make no mistake, the NSA is very competent and well informed. Never the less, PRISM isn't capable, and their simply isn't a mainframe big enough on the planet to analyze all the data that flows through T1 pipes per second.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
nsaspook
Science Advisor
949
1,398
You may think it is silly to monitor social media outlets, but make no mistake, the NSA is very competent and well informed. Never the less, PRISM isn't capable, and their simply isn't a mainframe big enough on the planet to analyze all the data that flows through T1 pipes per second.
I don't think it's silly to monitor communications of any kind as long as there is due process under law with individual warrants to cover each unique case. I also think the Justice Dept. should be doing it domestically not a branch of the military sanctioned to operate extra-constitutional acts of war against foreign powers.
 
  • #17
13
0
I don't think it's silly to monitor communications of any kind as long as there is due process under law with individual warrants to cover each unique case. I also think the Justice Dept. should be doing it domestically not a branch of the military sanctioned to operate extra-constitutional acts of war against foreign powers.
I couldn't agree more. Although I don't feel any "safer" knowing that my gmail conversations are being stored on a database somewhere for "good measure", I am rooting for the government. Cyber Espionage is an arms race and I would like to hope that we remain at the forefront.. no matter how unethical it may be.
 
  • #19
nsaspook
Science Advisor
949
1,398
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.
 
  • #20
249
2
Do we trust agencies to act responsibly and ethically when conducting covert surveillance?

I don't.

In the UK uncover police have had sexual relations with, and even fathered children with some of the people they were conducting surveillance against. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists

Why should I expect the intelligance analysts at GCHQ or NSA be any better?
 
  • #22
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,913
184
At the bottom of the article we get

uffolk County police confirmed its officers had gone to the house. In a statement the office of the county's police commissioner said:

"Suffolk County criminal intelligence detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore-based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee's computer searches took place on this employee's workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms 'pressure cooker bombs' and 'backpacks'."
It was a private company reporting on their own employee. Nothing to do with internet spying by the government
 
  • #23
Evo
Mentor
23,156
2,808
At the bottom of the article we get

It was a private company reporting on their own employee. Nothing to do with internet spying by the government
Oh, so she and her husband lied.

"Suffolk County criminal intelligence detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore-based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee's computer searches took place on this employee's workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms 'pressure cooker bombs' and 'backpacks'."
Ah, what a difference the truth makes.

Ok, people, from now on, please read ALL of the article before flying off the handle and making false accusations. Not you jesse, although you should have read it first so you wouldn't have posted it in the first place, there was another post after yours, just trying to keep as much misinformation off as possible so we have the correct story. Ever heard of "yellow journalism"?
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Cthugha
Science Advisor
1,956
318
Ok, people, from now on, please read ALL of the article before flying off the handle and making false accusations.
I could not agree more.

Oh, so she and her husband lied.
The article clearly ends with:
"In a new post on her Tumblr on Thursday, Catalano said: "We found out through the Suffolk police department that the searches involved also things my husband looked up at his old job. We were not made aware of this at the time of questioning and were led to believe it was solely from searches from within our house."

She was very obviously not aware of the circumstances that led to the police showing up at her home at the time she made the first statement. Still accusing her of lying seems odd to me.


A different story: Not really a false positive involving spying - just a reaction to a simple post on Facebook - but a story too funny not to mention it:

In Germany there are several well known "top-secret" (yes I am aware of the irony) NSA facilities like the dagger complex. One of the people living nearby tried to pull off a joke and invited others to a nature walk via Facebook for "joint research into the threatened habitat of NSA spies." hoping that "If we are really lucky, we might actually see a real NSA spy with our own eyes.". The next morning, the police investigated him - they were alarmed by the US military police. In the end, this of course even increased the attention his "nature walk" drew (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/us-military-and-german-police-respond-to-facebook-post-about-nsa-walk-a-911451.html).

Besides that: Inside the US it is solely the business of the US how much and whether they want to trade off security versus individual privacy. What is happening abroad is a different thing and while I understand the desire and maybe need for a certain level of surveillance - I would be surprised if no official "allowed" foreign espionage quotas exist - the US are really walking the line. Bugging the European Union offices and networks in Washington and at the UN (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/29/us-usa-eu-spying-idUSBRE95S0AQ20130629) is a completely different quality which cannot be explained with the desire for security and cannot be turned down with "others do the same"-like arguments. The line between anti-terror measures and industrial espionage is very narrow and in the long run, continuing such behavior will drive at least parts of Europe away from the US.
 
  • #25
Evo
Mentor
23,156
2,808
The article clearly ends with:
"In a new post on her Tumblr on Thursday, Catalano said: "We found out through the Suffolk police department that the searches involved also things my husband looked up at his old job. We were not made aware of this at the time of questioning and were led to believe it was solely from searches from within our house."

She was very obviously not aware of the circumstances that led to the police showing up at her home at the time she made the first statement. Still accusing her of lying seems odd to me.
Since she's lied before, I assume this is another lie. In other words, when you lie, you lose your credibility.
 

Related Threads on How far should the Dragnet reach.

Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
79
Views
9K
Top