NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret files reveal

Ehh... corrosive is a bit of an overstatement. Self-censorship can also be highly valued. Who here has known people that others described as "not thinking before they speak" and/or "not having a filter between their brain and their mouth"? Lets be blunt. Those people are a$$holes. They aren't some champion of honesty and free speech. They are just jerks. They aren't even necessarily honest.

Everything is a balance. Even so-called "free speech" has to have boundaries to separate charlatans and anarchists from the noble and virtuous. You have to prevent the people from outright lying and misrepresenting their "snake oil", maliciously slandering others, as well as keeping them from shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater... in order to protect the overall greater good.

And, as for the right of freedom of association... lets also be frank... that has largely been gutted over the years by numerous court decisions. Few people really do have a right to freely associate any more, as there is almost always some legally "protected class" regarding race, religion, gender, age, sexuality, or physical handicap that one can invoke to force an organization to admit their participation. What is free about that? We can debate whether that is a good or just outcome in every case, but its nevertheless a fairly accurate depiction of the current state of affairs.

 

Yes. That's why we're discussing it here.

 

Depends on point of view

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/briefingnote_/briefingnote_en.pdf

 

Absurd. Who decides who " thinks ", who is honest, who is charlatan, anarchist.... ?! But FIRST: democracy and freedom mean that charlatans, anarchists, not thinking, and also all you don't like have the right to speak and to express their opinions.

 

NSA Apologist Says The NSA's Actions Are Fine Because 'Privacy Is Dead'.

Is that so? I say no, privacy is not now and will never be dead. That is what 'they' want us to believe, and they probably believe it, but I do not, not for the smallest quantum of time. If privacy were truly dead, then 'they' would be completely transparent, but are not. 'They' must begin to realize that the assumption that privacy is dead is a non-starter, and need to revise their model of reality to cope with the changes that the people will put in place to restrain their illegal surveillance - and just do their job without all of the unnecessary expenditures of keeping track of everyone to find the needle in the haystack.

-- Tom

 

I wouldn't say "valued", but rather "prudent". That's because I'm speaking from my perspective, and not imposing my standards on others. People who impose their stuff on others are bullies, in my opinion. Sometimes they have lots of agreement and resources to back them up, but they're still bullies.

I don't have to prevent anything. I can resolve conflict, defend myself and others, seek justice and demand compensation, but I have no right to impose my standards on others.

This seems to be a complaint about some governmental policy. I have no more use for such policies than I do for Big Brother generally. It's also a rather recursive argument: "We have no freedom, so it doesn't matter that we're losing our freedom". Sounds like FUD to me.

 

How a Crypto ‘Backdoor’ Pitted the Tech World Against the NSA.

Slide show PDF link.

-- Tom

 

Here's another great quote from <-https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130916/17520324540/nsa-apologist-says-nsas-actions-are-fine-because-privacy-is-dead.shtml->:

 

WOW

 

Interesting read.
Especially Paul Kocher from Cryptography Research on Dual_EC_DRBG;
“Bad cryptography happens through laziness and ignorance,” he says. “But in this case, a great deal of effort went into creating this and choosing a structure that happens to be amenable to attack.
“What’s mathematically creative [with this algorithm] is that when you look at it, you can’t even prove whether there is a backdoor or not, which is very bizarre in cryptography,” he says.
“Usually the presence of a backdoor is something you can prove is there, because you can see it and exploit it…. In my entire career in cryptography, I’ve never seen a vulnerability like this.”

Then again, Jon Callas from Silent Circle calls it clumsy, laughably bad 'Boris and Natasha' stuff, unlikely to have any NSA relation.
Smoke and a mirror?

 

To speak and express their opinions, of course! But you ask who decides? If you live in the United States of America, then the Federal Court system decides. You call this absurd, but it is the very foundation of our society, that even free speech has its limits (see below).

You specifically don't have to prevent anything. Naturally, that was a rhetorical "you" not a specific "you". But "we" as a society have determined that even free speech has its boundaries, which you and your fellow advocates apparently don't want to recognize. I'm not being a bully or trying to impose my views on anyone. I'm simply pointing out what the Federal Court system has determined over many years and many cases, often going to the Supreme Court of the United States. In my earlier statement I was simply alluding to several well known exceptions to the doctrine of free speech. There are actually quite a few. Here is a partial list of examples on non-protected -- or lesser protected -- speech, if you care to do further research:

• Defamation (includes libel and slander).
• Obscenity / Child Pornography.
• Causing Panic (the classic case of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).
• Incitement to crime.
• False Statements of Fact.
• Sedition.
• Speech Owned by Others / Copyright.
• Commercial Speech (not entitled to full freedoms).

You may ask, how does this relate back to Internet Privacy again? Simply this: No doctrine is boundless, even if you agree with it in principle. I, personally, don't even believe in Internet Privacy or phone privacy. In my opinion, each person is making use of an open public resource -- either the Internet or the public phone system, in each respective case -- and they should be fully aware that their comments, and actions might be tracked or traced. This isn't because I believe in big government, but simply because I view it as any other shared resource, like a national park, a Federal highway, or a public transit system. Indeed cars have identifying license plates by society's collective agreement.

However, I'm even willing to concede that my view about Internet Privacy is in the minority, and that each of you represent a majority that view it as worthy goal. But, then, it should have limits should it not? Just as free speech? Aren't there some cases were it might be worthwhile to allow an invasion of privacy and a stripping of Internet anonymity? Do we all truly believe in an encrypted and anonymous Internet that lets people: trade in child pornography; participate in human trafficking and sex slavery; solicit and/or sell heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc; seek out and produce such things as "snuff" films and other acts of excessive depravity; promote and/or incite acts of terrorism or war; etc?

You may claim that such examples are in the extreme minority, that each rarely happens, that it is worth accepting if it means that you get your guaranteed privacy. But you can't claim that such things never happen. And it is these very boundaries over which I feel it worth having a serious and rational debate, before we all rush headlong forward with some inviolate doctrine of Internet Privacy in some "feel good", "rights to the people", "down with big brother" collective group think.

 

@Alec

You're missing the point that most Internet users aren't US citizens.

Would you want China setting the rules for the Internet? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan? Consider that how you would feel about that is how most users feel about US militarization of the Internet.

Edit: Also, money talks <-http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/8/6/nsa-pricked-the-cloud-bubble-for-us-tech-companies.html->.
Edit2: And <-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=225820140->!

 

That doesn't really matter. The questions are still valid. Should trade in child pornography on the Internet be permitted under the guise of "privacy"? That's a question of human morality that has nothing to do with borders. Granted, I'm inclined to prefer the USA view of acceptable vs non-acceptable behavior; yet still I would like to think that even in China or Saudi Arabia they wouldn't view child pornography as acceptable. My worldview is actually more inclusive vs less. I'm inclined to be optimistic that certain degenerate practices aren't tolerated by any peaceful society.

And I certainly wouldn't call it militarization of the Internet. Spying, snooping, and survailence are just that... an aggressive form of observation and analysis that all governments participate in to some degree. Militarization, to me, means someone is actually dying at the end of a gunpoint or bomb reticle, not as the abstract result of Internet packet inspection. Sure, a terrorist identified by such means might by targeted by a drone; but that's a separate discussion which actually has far more merit and weight. If the international community should be outraged, it should be over the US's excessive use of drones! I know I am somewhat appalled, even as a patriotic citizen.

 

I'm not. Just about anything is acceptable somewhere, and just about anything is also unacceptable somewhere.

 

Bruce Schneier: NSA Spying Is Making Us Less Safe.

-- Tom

 

Hey... That's not new... It's several years old Mirimir...

Everyone ignored it when it was first presented. Sort of like a curiosity growth on someones head like a bump, people made faces, a few raised eyebrows and then they simply moved on and totally ignored it!

It's a cryptographer's wet dream!
and apparently the early source of everything NSA encryption nasty...

 

@ 'Alex' ( Why don't you post under your real,full, name ??)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11/29/002r-112999-idx.html

Regarding 'child-pornography' ..
You DO realize that different countries have different 'legal ages', right ?
Also, different countries have different definitions of what can be seen as 'child-porn' .
It seems that in the US any picture of a minor without clothing qualifies ..

 

"It's for the children."

"Terror, terror, terror!"

Those only worked up until about...June.

PD

 

Good Summary of Potential NSA Involvement in a NIST RNG Standard by Bruce Schneier.

-- Tom

 

NSA Chief Begs His Public To Help Agency 'Get The Facts Out'.

-- Tom

 

Does anyone from Europe reading this thread know if the Iceland government has reconvened after their Summer recess and is either actively considering to grant Edward Snowden asylum on a permanent basis or will consider it actively before Snowden's year of temporary asylum in Russia runs out after the 1 year period next year?

-- Tom

 

Secret Cold War docs show NSA spied on senators.

-- Tom