Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The NSA's warrantless wiretapping is a crime, not a state secret (Page 13)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14   
Author Topic: The NSA's warrantless wiretapping is a crime, not a state secret
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the latest news, Obama is now expected to ask Congress to pass a law to stop him from breaking the law...

quote:
WASHINGTON – The National Security Agency may be getting out of the business of sweeping up and storing vast amounts of data on people's phone calls.

The Obama administration this week is expected to propose that Congress overhaul the electronic surveillance program by having phone companies hold onto the call records as they do now, according to a government official briefed on the proposal. The New York Times first reported the details of the proposal Monday night. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the plan.

The White House proposal would end the government's practice of sweeping up the phone records of millions of Americans and holding onto those records for five years so the numbers can be searched for national security reasons. Instead, the White House is expected to propose that the records be kept for 18 months, as the phone companies are already required to do by federal regulation.

Details of the government's secret phone records collection program were disclosed last year by a former NSA systems analyst. Privacy advocates were outraged to learn that the government was holding onto phone records of innocent Americans for up to five years.

In January, President Obama tasked his administration with coming up with an alternative to the current counterterrorism program. Obama also said that the option of having the phone companies hold the records posed problems.

"This will not be simple," Obama said. An independent review panel suggested that the practice of the government collecting the phone records be replaced by a third party or the phone companies holding the records, and the government would access them as needed.

"Both of these options pose difficult problems," Obama said in January. "Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns."

And the phone companies have been against this option, as well.

In several meetings with White House staff since December, phone company executives came out strongly opposed to proposals that would shift the custody of the records from the NSA to the telecoms. The executives said they would only accept such changes to the NSA program if they were legally required and if that requirement was spelled out in legislation.

The companies are concerned about the costs of retaining the records and potential liability, such as being sued by individuals whose phone data was provided to intelligence or law enforcement agencies, these people said. The discussions with the White House ceased earlier this year. Industry officials said they had not been in contact with the administration as new options were being considered. The executives have continued to discuss the issue with lawmakers, however.

The administration's proposed changes won't happen right away. The government plans to continue its bulk collection program for at least three months, the Times said.

The White House does not have the full support of Congress for this option, either.

The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, has advocated for the program to continue to operate as it does. The California Democrat said she would be open to other options if they met national security and privacy needs.

It is unclear whether the White House proposal will meet those needs.

Leaders of the House intelligence committee are expected to introduce legislation Tuesday that would call for a similar option to the Obama administration's.

Under the administration's pending legislative proposal, officials would have to obtain phone records by getting individual orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Times report said. The new court orders would require companies to provide those records swiftly and to make available continuing data related to the order when new calls are placed or received.

So the past few Presidents have been acting illegally, Obama expanded it, and now he's asking Congress to pass a law so he will stop acting illegally...

Yes, you read that correctly.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read, "We have a serious PR problem AND budgetary problems which can both be solved by making someone else foot the bill for this while we retain access to the data while it is within the window of usefulness."
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama wants Congress to pass a law so the telecoms will do something they're already required to do, which in turn will supposedly "free him up" from breaking the law.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So today we heard from Hillary Clinton, who is rumored to be the next democrat candidate in 2016 for president, that spying on foreign leaders is wrong and should be "off-limits."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/clinton-fox-news/
quote:
The secretary also touched on the NSA scandal, saying the tapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone was "absolutely uncalled for" and should be "off limits."
Anyone else find it sickening that these statist tyrants seem to care more for the liberties of foreigners than US citizens that are supposed to be covered by the 4th Amendment whereas Angela Merkel is NOT?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In essence, say goodbye to any whistle-blowing in the future.
You're confusing disclosing classified information with whistle blowing. This doesn't stop whistle blowing, it only limits the ability people from doing so by way of illegally disclosing classified information. (If you're suggesting that we should do away with the concept of classified information in general)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
In essence, say goodbye to any whistle-blowing in the future.
You're confusing disclosing classified information with whistle blowing. This doesn't stop whistle blowing, it only limits the ability people from doing so by way of illegally disclosing classified information. (If you're suggesting that we should do away with the concept of classified information in general)
You seem to be confusing classified information with evidence of unconstitutional/illegal activities. Or do I need to copy and paste the court decisions for you again?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
In essence, say goodbye to any whistle-blowing in the future.
You're confusing disclosing classified information with whistle blowing. This doesn't stop whistle blowing, it only limits the ability people from doing so by way of illegally disclosing classified information. (If you're suggesting that we should do away with the concept of classified information in general)
The release of classified information looks to me like a backlash against Obama's evisceration of whistleblower protections.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So there are now fake cell towers popping up all over the US, to the point where cellphones and apps are being made to identify these. They are being used by law enforcement to do massive warrantless wiretapping of all phones in the areas around them.


quote:
There are at least 19 bogus cellphone towers operating across the United States that could be used to spy upon, and even hijack, passing mobile phones.

So says Les Goldsmith, head of ESD America, a company that imports and sells tightly secured mobile phones that can detect "baseband" hacking attempts. Goldsmith calls fake cell towers "interceptors."

"Interceptor use in the U.S. is much higher than people had anticipated," Goldsmith told Popular Science in a piece posted online last week. "One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina, and he found eight different interceptors on that trip."

Cellphones communicate with cellular-service towers using the baseband processor, a chip that controls some or all of the radio signals sent to and from the device. Baseband processors run their own operating systems and are made by a handful of companies that zealously protect their trade secrets; not even phone makers know exactly how the baseband processors work.

Mobile phones seek out and establish contact with the nearest compatible cell tower, or at least the one with the strongest signal, jumping from one "cell" to another as they move around. However, while each phone has to prove its authenticity to each tower (to verify that the cellular service has been paid for), towers are under no obligation to verify their own identities to phones.

That's where bogus towers come into play. Also known as "IMSI catchers," they're used by law enforcement in many countries, including the U.S., to collect the IMSI identification numbers of the SIM cards on GSM and LTE phones. Even without any phone calls or texts sent or received, a phone's IMSI will be logged by every nearby cell tower, real or fake.

Most cellular communications between a phone and a tower are encrypted, but the encryption standard has to be agreed upon during initial contact. A tower can demand that weak encryption, or no encryption at all, be used. Signal protocols — various iterations of 4G, 3G or 2G — are also negotiated.

An ordinary cellphone indicates when it moves from 4G to 3G, but it won't display which form of encryption is being used. The user will have no idea if calls, texts or data are being transmitted "in the clear" for anyone to hear or see.

In this way, a bogus tower with a signal stronger than other nearby towers can force decryption upon targeted devices. High-end bogus towers can relay outgoing communications to genuine cellular networks, and thereby stage man-in-the-middle attacks; the targeted user can place calls and send texts, usually with no indication that he or she is being monitored.

Bogus towers can even be used to deliver malware by attacking the baseband processor, as several proof-of-concept hacks demonstrated at security conferences have shown. It's possible that the much-rumored, but never proven, ability of the National Security Agency to use a phone that's been "turned off" as a microphone depends on baseband malware.


The CryptoPhone 500 sold by Goldsmith's company can tell when an IMSI catcher is in operation. A Samsung Galaxy S3 running a heavily modified version of Android licensed from the German company GSMK, the phone has a "baseband firewall" that monitors everything going in and out of the baseband processor.

If GSM encryption is downgraded or deactivated, or the baseband sees a lot of traffic without corresponding activity in the "userland" operating system (in this case, Android), the screen alerts the user that an IMSI catcher may be in operation.

Using data provided from clients who use CryptoPhone 500s, Goldsmith's company has created a map of the U.S. showing locations of 19 IMSI catchers. Most are in California and the Southwest, but Chicago and New York have one each.

"A lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases," Goldsmith told Popular Science. "So we begin to wonder — are some of them U.S. government interceptors? Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?"



Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A quick web search shows that such devices have been around for years and are also used by criminals. It also appears that the towers may not be phony. I'll leave it to you to convince me that this is yet another nefarious Obama plot to steal your freedoms rather than a hole in gsm technology that is open to exploit by many different actors and should be corrected.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really Al? You think law enforcement manipulating cell towers to force phones to send unencrypted signals is a good thing? Don't you care about privacy? About civil rights? Why not just agree to let the government implant you with a tracking chip?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you show where I said any of those things?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, you can't or won't, so let me answer your questions anyway.
quote:
You think law enforcement manipulating cell towers to force phones to send unencrypted signals is a good thing?
No. Can someone show a case where this occurred? It would be helpful to understand when/where/why it has happened.
quote:
Don't you care about privacy?
Privacy protection is extremely important, but in this age of incredibly powerful and pervasive electronic communication it's not clear that it even exists.
quote:
About civil rights?
As above, show an example where someone's civil rights were violated by the government. Since this mechanism has been known since the advent of GSM technology as far back as 2002, it might be easier for you or Seneca to find a case where it was used for private sector snooping or criminal purposes.
quote:
Why not just agree to let the government implant you with a tracking chip?
I wouldn't want it, but it's foolish to imagine that your exact whereabouts won't be trackable in a few years whether or not you lay your head on the operating table. Consider that Grindr just announced that they will disable their "distance detection" feature that allows you to find other gay people for hookups anywhere in the world. They did that because they were alerted that people were using that feature to track down and harass gay people, sometimes halfway around the world from where you might be.

That's not the government, but I'm sure they can and probably have done that already. That's not to mention people you don't know who want to monitor your movements.

Don't be afraid, but the next time you're walking along a street passing a restaurant and your phone beeps with a 10% discount for the next 15 minutes at that very place, understand that it's not random. They know who you are, what your eating habits are, whether you said nice things or negative things about them on twitter, what stores you shop at in the area, and how many times you pass through that area by foot or by car on a weekly basis.

People who are paranoid about government intrusion into their lives can somehow tolerate that, but that scares *me* more, because they are studying your every movement and plotting to manipulate you for their own nefarious purpose: profit. I know for a fact that this is happening and will increase, because software I helped invent and develop is used to make it happen.

I am amused by people who think that they are keeping a low profile "on the grid" or are taking themselves completely off it. I bet that if you cancel all of your credit cards, pay for literally everything in cash or in kind, work for barter and don't own a cell phone - even a disposable one- that one day when you open your front door you will find a free subscription offer for "American Survivalist" magazine on your "Go Away!" mat.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al. The police have been caught using it a lot look up the Stingray thread I posted. It shouldn't be that old. You can't seriously be denying the government is using this tech are you?

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16461.html#000000

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say they weren't. I'm not so black and white as to believe the government is not using that mechanism on occasion, but you seem to be completely blind that you are potentially being victimized (likely) far more often by criminals.

It's as if you get incredibly angry if the government takes a peek in your wallet but don't seem to mind if a pickpocket steals it. I truly, truly don't understand the one-sidedness.

[ September 06, 2014, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The difference is when criminals get caught doing it they get arrested. When was the last time you saw police at the NSA carrying people out in handcuffs?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you know of a case where someone in the private sector was arrested for doing it?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cases where private citizens get prosecuted for hacking people's phones and computers by intercepting signals and taking the information? Happens all the time. Go the FBI's press release webpage.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I don't see anything there that fits. I don't want to spend my time researching your position. Show me some examples. So far in this thread you've made a number of claims but haven't supported any of them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you are going to make me repost the federal court decisions that declare mass warrantless wiretapping of cellphones unconstitutional? It's been posted here at 5+ times that I've seen. 10 seconds on google can find those decisions. As to law enforcement doing it anyway despite that I already provided several sources.

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16461.html#000000

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've already said it exists and is likely used by the government - and in some cases has been found illegal. The technology is available and common, as Pyrtolin in that thread and I in this one have pointed out.
quote:
Cases where private citizens get prosecuted for hacking people's phones and computers by intercepting signals and taking the information? Happens all the time. Go the FBI's press release webpage.
But I asked you to point to those cases, not to government ones. Are you going to back this up or should I drop it?

[ September 07, 2014, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Too easy. They are all over the news all the time.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/10/12/fbi-makes-arrest-in-celebrity-photo-hacking-case-dubbed-operation-hackerazzi/

Essentially, any "hacker" that goes into someone's phone or intercepts data from or accesses data on it is doing the same thing as these fake towers the government is illegally operating.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those are hacked emails or hacked iCloud. You can't just say "it is doing the same thing as these fake towers the government is illegally operating". It's not at all the same as listening in on phone conversations.

You're really struggling here. Let me repeat one last time: You have said that there are many cases where someone was arrested for using Stingray technology to fake a tower or fool a phone into broadcasting phone conversations in the clear. Show me one.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hacking into a phone and intercepting phone signals are the same thing in 2014 with the constant ongoing backups that nearly all smartphones have. You are in error.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All hacking is not the same, is it? You still haven't shown an example of someone who was arrested for Stingray type technology. I'm not going to get into a technical back and forth with you, because you are out of your depth and I don't care to continue doing research to point out your mistakes every time you make a statement. You are conflating all hacks with eavesdropping and apparently can't come up with a straight up case to back up your sweeping claim.

If someone else here on Ornery can make Seneca's case for him I'll listen, but I'll withdraw from this discussion until then.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
because you are out of your depth
What a cop-out response as well as an empty personal attack when you have nothing left to say. You should have just admitted you were wrong and left it there. Even SCOTUS acknowledges that smartphones in modern-day are not mere telephones or computers, they are a melding of the two that are constantly sending their entire contents to cloud backup locations all the time making any interception of their signals the same as hacking into them and cloning their contents.

[ September 07, 2014, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hacking into a phone and intercepting phone signals are the same thing in 2014 with the constant ongoing backups that nearly all smartphones have.
I don't know about you, but my cloud backups are sent using 256-bit encryption. Someone intercepting that signal would still have to work for a while to get anything useful out of the backup.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The government has all encryption sorted out. They simply went to the companies and threatened them until they gave it up.

The few ways to encrypt that the government doesn't have are so cumbersome and complicated that they are essentially inaccessible to most users. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/14/nsa-proof-encryption-exists-why-doesnt-anyone-use-it/

Regardless of that, we shouldn't be having to encrypt our communications from the government when the courts openly acknowledge that their mass wireless wiretapping is illegal.

[ September 07, 2014, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To elaborate, it should be an ethical system. Either the government's wiretapping is legit and there shouldn't be any citizens that are allowed to use encryption the government can't break and they should be arrested for that if anyone's signals are encyrpted and the government can't break them (but they'd see that it was encrypted so they'd know who was using it and pick them up) or the mass warrantless wiretapping isn't legit and the government shouldn't be doing it at all. It shouldn't be this half-and-half system where the citizens are "fighting back" against the government by trying to encrypt their communications and the government is "fighting back" by trying to always decrypt it. That's insane. We should never have to be in conflict against our own government.

[ September 07, 2014, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, not sure where that last post is coming from. Did you know that cloud backups are done with encryption, as Tom pointed out? The data Apple holds (except for email) is stored in encrypted form, but if the user has intercepted or stolen a password for an iCould user, they can get the encrypted data.

In other words, cell-tower spoofing/impresonation to intercept and eavesdrop on phone calls by forcing them to use unencrypted transfer is nothing like stealing data stored in the cloud. Is that clear?

[ September 08, 2014, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The government has all encryption sorted out. They simply went to the companies and threatened them until they gave it up.

The few ways to encrypt that the government doesn't have are so cumbersome and complicated that they are essentially inaccessible to most users. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/14/nsa-proof-encryption-exists-why-doesnt-anyone-use-it/

Regardless of that, we shouldn't be having to encrypt our communications from the government when the courts openly acknowledge that their mass wireless wiretapping is illegal.

It's pointless if it's encrypted because those companies turned over their encryption info to the government a long time ago and continue to work with the NSA....
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, to be clear are you saying that the same technology that is used to create fake cell-phone towers is being used to decrypt your files? Are you also now blaming the government for doing that to Apple to get those nude photos? Are these things really all the same, and are all being done by the same people?

I'm very confused by your hopping around from one thing to another. All you seem to be doing is attacking and ducking, mostly about things that have been known about for a very long time. Your WP article is over a year old, for example, and your revelation about fake towers is based on 12-year old technology.

With this sudden retro-interest in NSA spying and your recent posts about the IRS, Benghazi and immigration, are you just gearing up for the elections?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. Textbook deflection. You've been trounced in this argument so you bring up all kinds of unrelated topics and then trying poisoning the well. It is truly sad to see this partisan approach.

The facts are clear.

1. These fake towers are being used to intercept cell signals.

2. Due to how constant backups work for smartphones in 2014 intercepting a signal is the same as hacking the phone's contents.

3. Encryption is pointless because the IT companies have given everything to the NSA.

These points taken together show clearly what the problem is. Attempting to blow smoke and confuse them are just pathetic tries to defend a failing administration and their illegal domestic spying policies.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is truly sad to see this partisan approach.
I'm just glad we have you on the watchtower, scanning for partisanship and rooting it out.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An additional point. Encryption would work on everyone BUT the government. The NSA has apple, google and microsoft working for them, but identity thieves don't. They'd have to crack the data themselves.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
because you are out of your depth
What a cop-out response as well as an empty personal attack when you have nothing left to say. You should have just admitted you were wrong and left it there. Even SCOTUS acknowledges that smartphones in modern-day are not mere telephones or computers, they are a melding of the two that are constantly sending their entire contents to cloud backup locations all the time making any interception of their signals the same as hacking into them and cloning their contents.
You went off course in the second half there. The first part is right- SCotUS has figured out that there's a difference, and has started issuing rulings to that effect. However you go beyond the scope of the rulings that have been made. SCotUS has not yet managed to rule that the transmissions from phones are any different that any other broadcast signal, which means, so far as the law goes, you may as well be speaking on a CB when you use your phone, which the police can monitor as much as they like, since it's a public transmission.

We do actively need Congress or the regulatory agencies to step up, short of another case getting to the Supreme Court to make it have to rule so, and actually define a difference between public transmissions and those that phones make, so that they have to be treated as if they were wired signals and not radio signals.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That would be an incorrect interpretation of the court's ruling. The court acknowledged that phones contain extensive personal information that are different from phones of the past. The constant backups may be transmitted wirelessly but they are more akin to personal documents being secure whether they are in a house or being transported somewhere else.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some startling new findings that the NSA has been violating its rules for many years now.

http://theweek.com/article/index/266785/this-is-why-you-cant-trust-the-nsa-ever

quote:
The notion that the National Security Agency could police its own internet dragnet program with minimal oversight from a secret court has long drawn scoffs from observers. Now it appears that skepticism was completely justified, following the release of a bunch of documents on the program earlier this month by the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (ODNI), which came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Exhibit A is a comprehensive end-to-end report that the NSA conducted in late summer or early fall of 2009, which focused on the work the agency did in metadata collection and analysis to try and identify people emailing terrorist suspects.

The report described a number of violations that the NSA had cleaned up since the beginning of that year — including using automatic alerts that had not been authorized and giving the FBI and CIA direct access to a database of query results. It concluded the internet dragnet was in pretty good shape. "NSA has taken significant steps designed to eliminate the possibility of any future compliance issues," the last line of the report read, "and to ensure that mechanisms are in place to detect and respond quickly if any were to occur."

But just weeks later, the Department of Justice informed the FISA Court, which oversees the NSA program, that the NSA had been collecting impermissible categories of data — potentially including content — for all five years of the program's existence.

So how did they find it?

quote:
The Justice Department said the violation had been discovered by NSA's general counsel, which since a previous violation in 2004 had been required to do two spot checks of the data quarterly to make sure NSA had complied with FISC orders. But the general counsel had found the problem only after years of not finding it. The Justice Department later told the court that "virtually every" internet dragnet record "contains some metadata that was authorized for collection and some metadata that was not authorized for collection." In other words, in the more than 25 checks the NSA's general counsel should have done from 2004 to 2009, it never once found this unauthorized data.

The following year, Judge John Bates, then head of FISC, emphasized that the NSA had missed the unauthorized data in its comprehensive report. He noted "the extraordinary fact that NSA's end-to-end review overlooked unauthorized acquisitions that were documented in virtually every record of what was acquired." Bates went on, "[I]t must be added that those responsible for conducting oversight at NSA failed to do so effectively."

So then what happened?

quote:
Nevertheless, in the very same document, Bates would go on to authorize restarting the program (his colleague, Judge Reggie Walton, had shut it down after learning of the illegal collection in late 2009). Not only that: Bates's reauthorization permitted the NSA to collect all the data it had been unauthorized to collect before; expanded the number of NSA analysts who could access the data to pretty much anyone with training; unmoored the collection from specific switches more likely to carry terrorist traffic; and expanded the volume of collection by 11 to 24 times.

In other words, Bates decided it was a good idea to let those who, in his judgment, failed to effectively conduct oversight at the NSA to dramatically expand the program.

And some disturbing insight on why Congressional approval was not sought
quote:
Those documents also show how lawyers from the Justice Department secretly told FISC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in 2004 that they couldn't get Congress to pass a law to expand the executive's spying authority — which they admitted was what the White House normally did when it came across a law it found too restrictive — because "seeking legislation would inevitably compromise the secrecy of the collection program the government wishes to undertake."

The documents show that when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2005 on programs authorized by the internet dragnet law, he made no mention of what the NSA was doing under it. They show how Judge Walton correctly guessed, in early 2009, that he might find the same violations with the internet dragnet as the Justice Department had previously disclosed about the NSA's phone-tapping program.

And of course, they show that roughly six months of close review of the internet dragnet program did not lead the NSA to discover — or if it did discover, to admit — that it had been illegally collecting data within the U.S. for five whole years. It took something else to get NSA to admit to that.

So what is the government's response to all of this?

quote:
Clapper's office maintains that these documents demonstrate "the oversight regime of internal checks over the program." Perhaps, though they reflect favorably only on Walton's decision to shut the program down in 2009.

But there's a lot Clapper's office isn't saying. First, his office is hiding almost all the dates on these documents (it took matching these with many other public documents to come up with the estimates in this article). Perhaps that's to shield the government from liability for this illegal spying.

Also, ODNI claims that the FISC-authorized internet dragnet has been shut down. "As previously stated, this internet communications metadata bulk collection program has been discontinued." But during precisely the same weeks when NSA's general counsel was busy not finding the illegal data in virtually every internet dragnet record, NSA piloted a new program to permit its analysts to do the same kind of analysis on the metadata of U.S. persons collected under an executive order (Executive Order 12333). NSA expanded the program to all of NSA in early 2011, before NSA shut down the internet dragnet program.

So what we are left with TODAY?

There is now a successor NSA spying program that has even less oversight than the original one that did not even have successful oversight...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This must be silly season leading up to an election. Yup, 6 weeks to go. Sigh, this is going to get pretty ugly.

I actually wish that I could believe that Seneca was broadcasting truth and fact instead of conspiracy theories and trumped up scandal mongering claims, but he's so busy telling just parts of the story on all of them that it really is not worth the effort to do anything but point out how obsessed he is with bringing down Democrats and raising up Republicans to take their place. Relax, Seneca, from what you've said about both parties you'll hate the new regime as much as the old, so why bother?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, in fairness, Seneca is entirely right on this latest issue: the NSA is out of control. That's more Bush's fault than it is Obama's, sure, but Seneca has never given Bush a pass on this one and he's entirely right to criticize Obama for not keeping his promise to rein the NSA in.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That message is lost in the noise.We don't really know what kind of pass he really would have given Bush or will give Republicans when they have more control over the levers of government. Many of the things he specifically and vehemently blames Obama and Democrats for are directly or indirectly the results of their policies.

[ September 18, 2014, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1