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

A New Twist in International Relations: The Corporate Keep-My-Data-Out-of-the-U.S. Clause

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...orate-keep-my-data-out-of-the-u-s-clause.html

 

Money talks.

But where is data in fact safe?

 

Perhaps the question is where data is most likely to be unsafe.
Or perhaps better put, guaranteed to be copied and stored in megadatapharm.gov or at least accessible because of a certain law/ruling/unknown gov<->business non-disclosure agreement.
Then avoiding that option, is from where you go further.

 

Yes governments have always spied but it is only in the last 20 years that the tech age has given them the oppertunity to carry this out on such an unprecedented scale. Everytime you post a comment, write an email, send a text messsage view an online video, enter a search phrase it is being logged and through underhanded methods, they are linking it to you personally when you think it was just a frivolous throwaway comment it is on their servers with your name and address. This means at such time in the future that a government agency decides your views are "subversive" that you are an undesireable citizen they can secure a conviction against you for anything they wish to accuse you of because your own comments and interests will be twisted and misconstrued in a court of law and used against you. I think Snowden is a peoples hero and what he has done could change that potential future for all of us.

 

It's a hard problem. For individuals and closely held businesses, it's probably best to hide with VPNs and Tor, and keep data nearby, under ones own control. But that doesn't scale well, because data flows become impossible to hide. Distributed is probably the way to go.

 

@RockLobster

It's the blessing/curse of modern communication technologies. In a word, 1984. Orwell‎ got it amazingly well, writing in the late 40s. I agree that Snowden is a hero. I'm reminded of how Germany has evolved since reunification, and the fall of the Stasi. But I wonder if Americans are ready for that.

 

We need a system that generates and secures its own encryption keys, probably a distributed system of some kind, so once the it is initialized it requires no human involvement in the encryption process. I believe this is possible and would create an environment where data can be stored securely anywhere because if no human knows the encryption keys no human trust is neccessary.

 

Mirimir, in my opinion, no. Those involved with groups such as Anonymous are ready to at least go to war, even if they might not win. But your average American? No. I do not think they would be able to take agents storming their house because of criticism they post to their Facebooks and Twitters. They would fold like a dollar bill when threatened with jail time or disinformation campaigns against them like many journalists and others here have gone through. The biggest issue is convenience though. Americans, and I speak as one, have a very tough time with being inconvenienced. They can't even make it through a TSA checkpoint without huffing, how much more frustrated would they get with encrypting all communication they make, lobbying the government for change and other necessities?

Just as with keeping their data safe, they would rather someone else take care of it. Unfortunately, I think the ability to trust others to do so is gone.

 

@Dave0291

Yes, it's a little hopeless. And it's more than a little ironic that the strongest challenges to the status quo are coming from datamining enterprises. For deer, it matters little when the wolves chase the mountain lion away

 

<http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17220-angela-merkel-tells-obama-nsa-is-like-the-stasi>

 

Unlike nearly every other country in existence, America has never until now dealt with an oppressive government. I think that is one of the reasons why individual citizens are worried, but don't really "get it". The NSA peering into invisible ones and zeros just isn't hitting home so to speak. I think it would a bit different and will be when true censorship hits these shores and when agents do start showing up at the homes of the lesser folk for opposing ideals and speaking out. The problem with that is that by then it is much too late for an unprepared population to fight back. It is simply going to take more than numerous media reports of NSA shenanigans to wake them up.

Let us also face facts, the only reason these corporations are fighting back now is because they are taking the heat for the NSA. The NSA is untouchable to citizens, Google is not. Had Mr. Snowden never gone public, you would not have heard a peep out of these companies. It never bothered them that much, no matter what they say to newspapers and watchdogs. Otherwise they would have tried to fight years ago.

 

Yes, I'm sure that they were cooperating.

But I also believe that NSA's taps on their site-to-site traffic surprised them.

 

~ Edward Snowden's Christmas message: a child born today will have no conception of privacy ~
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2083...today-will-have-no-conception-of-privacy.html

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/4od

 

That's certainly becoming the norm.

However, knowledge about creating and accessing private spaces is also spreading.

Maybe some will learn how to have privacy while appearing to have none.

Even under the KGB's thumb in the former Soviet Union, there were samizat, zines copied with typewriters and carbon paper, and circulated secretly among friends. Unfortunately, as in "Won't Get Fooled Again", the Party fat cats have become capitalist fat cats, and a KGB veteran is President But at least he has enough sense of humor (irony, anyway) to shelter Edward Snowden

How many times can we be fooled?

 

Google said it themselves straight up to Gmail users not long ago.
~ Google filing says emails sent to Gmail have no expectation of privacy ~
http://www.slashgear.com/google-fil...mail-have-no-expectation-of-privacy-13293642/

 

Indeed, and it's good that they're upfront about it.

But GnuPG-encrypted email via Tor among anonymous users of VFEmail.net's hidden service have pretty good privacy, no? Basic accounts are free, and they accept payment in Bitcoins, which can be anonymized as much as you wish. There's also the fact that they've been around since 2001.

 

This is exactly why I moved all email away from Google, with exception of account related email I am forced to use since I have a Nexus 7. Google, very bluntly, has no damned business reading the contents of a message, machine or not. They have a near monopoly on the U.S online ad industry, and more than enough people using their search engine and other Google products to get the data they so desperately crave. Their excuse in that filing is simply that, an excuse. Secretaries are paid to handle the business of their bosses, and the U.S Postal Service doesn't open letters unless they have a very good suspicion that something isn't right.

They quite honestly need to be knocked down a few pegs and held more accountable as they are in Europe. However, being that they are very likely to have been one of the first companies to willingly join in the NSA games, our government won't put them in their place.

 

I don't disagree with any of your points.

But I will add that Google may have played a more important role than merely cooperating with the NSA. One of the central "claims" (albeit "fictional") in The Silicon Jungle by Shumeet Baluja, currently a "Senior Staff Research Scientist at Google", is that the NSA developed its Internet-search capabilities with Google's help. Supporting that possibility are statements in some of the Snowden documents about the NSA having been aimlessly lost after the Soviet Union collapsed, and unprepared to deal with the Internet after 9/11. But hey, that's just a novel, right?

 

I am not at all surprised they didn't understand what to do with the internet. And that is likely one of the reasons we now have to deal with blanket surveillance. In all honesty, all U.S agencies deal with the same issues. They have a bad tendency to not be keen on sharing with each other due to territorial disputes..you know "Hey, this is our case!". They have way too many "top people" and not enough middle men to keep the bottom and top of the pole in check, and they have a huge issue with funding being sent to projects that--despite every failed test and lack of efficiency-- some "top guy" wants to keep going. You see it mostly in the military, but it happens throughout the government.

Despite all the scary abilities the NSA has, as you said, they rely on others to do the heavy lifting. They don't even collect the data themselves, they just authorize its collection, receive, store and sometimes look at it. Google is a different mess altogether, and if they know that what the NSA is doing is wrong and don't like their servers being siphoned, then perhaps it is about time they ask themselves "Hey, aren't we doing the same thing to our users? Let's work on that.".

 

Researchers show why the NSA's phone metadata is far from anonymous
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/26/...the-nsas-phone-metadata-is-far-from-anonymous

 

Hypponen pulls out of RSA Conference over NSA backdoor

Hypponen pulls out of RSA Conference over NSA backdoor.

-- Tom

 

Re: Hypponen pulls out of RSA Conference over NSA backdoor

Security firm RSA took millions from NSA: report.

-- Tom

 

Federal judge rules NSA metadata collection is lawful, dismissing ACLU case
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/27/...metadata-collection-is-lawful-dismissing-aclu

 

Getting Federal judges to go against the administration will be close to impossible, considering they are generally put in place because of agreement with the political ideas of the current administration. Yes, that is talking about politics, but it is a true statement. The Supreme Court has the same issue at times, but they are more likely to pass it back to the government in cases like this rather than make a ruling. Another strong possibility in this case is that if the Supreme Court hears the case and says it is unconstitutional, the administration will again cite national security and ignore it. Ignoring Supreme Court decisions has happened several times throughout the history of the country.

That could be a problem if the current administration is still in office, as ignoring Supreme Court decisions has not gone over too well with the public the last few times Presidents have done it. However, given how long the Supreme Court often takes to decide, this administration may be gone before a ruling is even handed down.

 

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/judge-grants-motion-dismiss-nsa-surveillance-case

Judge's Decision Is Disappointing, But Fight Over Program's Legality Is Not Over