NSA Secretly Collecting Phone Records Of All U.S. Verizon Calls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Since it is so important for people to know what the majority of knuckle dragging buffoons who can't figure out how to use a credit card thing about intricate issues, here are 2 polls that dispute the pew findings and now show a majority of people are against this nonsense. Or it could show that the wind has blown and people have run to grab a beer in between the football game or Kim Kardashian show long enough to even know what day it is.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...OV_XWJck#t=41s

More depressing polling. Approval of Total Information Awareness (or whatever you want to call it) up five points since 2006. So ... yeah. Good one, fellow citizens.

https://i.imgur.com/KkAOZgW.png

Collecting meta data for infrequent events.

Predictability of events increases with their frequency. For instance contact centres can predict how many phone calls come in to their various queues. The ones that have the highest volume have the highest accuracy.

Most people I talk to just don't care about the surveillance. The American public has failed, gonna have to wait 20 years before the next generation has the opportunity to do something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Most people I talk to just don't care about the surveillance. The American public has failed, gonna have to wait 20 years before the next generation has the opportunity to do something.

---

Anyone give a reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Anyone give a reason?

---

1. I have nothing to hide.

2. No one is ever going to be looking at me specifically among 300 million people. AKA, anything I do will just "get lost" in the data.

Hard to argue with. The government doesnt have the time or the interest to go big brother on absolutely everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Hard to argue with. The government doesnt have the time or the interest to go big brother on absolutely everyone.

---

Sure they do. You don't need a physical human to actually monitor everyone. As long as you have the data and organize it in a smart way, all it takes is a handful of programmers to write something that will allow the government to recall anything they want about you and use it to control you.

And besides that, even though there isn't a human behind every security camera, are you going to act otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Sure they do. You don't need a physical human to actually monitor everyone. As long as you have the data and organize it in a smart way, all it takes is a handful of programmers to write something that will allow the government to recall anything they want about you and use it to control you.

And besides that, even though there isn't a human behind every security camera, are you going to act otherwise?

---

My mom said "they can't possibly monitor everything". I then asked her how a computer works and she blacked out.

Most stock trades are done by bots not humans.

After the Boston bombing occurred a rumour went out and stated that the US President had been wounded in a terrorist attack. The stock market tanked when the bots reacted to that input. Human stock brockers did not on the whole over react and it was only the bots pushing the market down based on a rumour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Most stock trades are done by bots not humans.

After the Boston bombing occurred a rumour went out and stated that the US President had been wounded in a terrorist attack. The stock market tanked when the bots reacted to that input. Human stock brockers did not on the whole over react and it was only the bots pushing the market down based on a rumour.

---

Those are quite scary actually. You'll get random tanking of stocks for example. They can drop with 5-10% for a few seconds and then go back to normal. Or it can happen to the whole market

But yeah the information will probably be bot used and later on AI used. Sounds comfortable and perfectly safe doesn't it?

Interesting how polarised the opinions in the US are. When our guy does it, it's ok, when the opponent uses it, it's an outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Sure they do. You don't need a physical human to actually monitor everyone. As long as you have the data and organize it in a smart way, all it takes is a handful of programmers to write something that will allow the government to recall anything they want about you and use it to control you.

---

The government doesnt have the time or resources to have a person moniter each of the 300,000,000 people and a computer program will have to have quite specific conditions to have a person brought to the government's attention otherwise they would be overloaded with trillions of useless alerts. A despotic government will prioritize people with power and influence and only be alerted of blatant subversive behaviour, they will ignore the rest unless they do something to attract attention, and considering the majority of people think they wont be doing anything to attract said attention, the bystander effect kicks in "it's not my problem".

To qualify: I dont agree that a survelance state or anything should be allowed to continue, I'm just trying to understand how people can be fine with such happening.

Quote:

---

And besides that, even though there isn't a human behind every security camera, are you going to act otherwise?

---

We are nowhere near having computers sophisticated enough to effectively replace an attentive security guard at a camera. Unless you've attracted attention or are committing a crime so obvious even a computer can tell, a computerised security camera's footage will never be seen by anyone in the government.

'Pretty easy to assume that will happen to the majority of american's footage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

We are nowhere near having computers sophisticated enough to effectively replace an attentive security guard at a camera. Unless you've attracted attention or are committing a crime so obvious even a computer can tell, a computerised security camera's footage will never be seen by anyone in the government.

---

We do have face-recognition software. So they could use computer to trace down some one specific movements. However, it is a case of resources, so they probably won't want to trace every nobody, just somebodies which just comes on their radar.

I take back everything I said, the great leader has spoken and he says it's all fine.

He's a guy I trust deeply and if he says it's normal and civilized then I shall not protest it anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Interesting how polarised the opinions in the US are. When our guy does it, it's ok, when the opponent uses it, it's an outrage.

---

Yes, while it's interesting that support among Repubs dropped by a third, and rose among Democrats by something like three-quarters, the rise of support (beyond any MOE) among Independents is more so.

Remember kids the government is a bumbling mess of incompetence.

Unless they do something you don't like in which case they are highly capable jackbooted thugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Remember kids the government is a bumbling mess of incompetence.

Unless they do something you don't like in which case they are highly capable jackbooted thugs.

---

That's probably because they put more energy into controlling us from behind closed doors than they put into actually doing something useful. The whole lawmaking thing is just a distraction from what they're actually busy doing behind closed doors.


Also China raises a few good points:
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/78...l#.Ubz-tj75nAQ

Quote:

---

Snowden's exposure has upgraded our understanding of cyberspace, especially cyber attacks from the US, which is probably a much sharper weapon than its traditional military force. This weapon has demonstrated the US' hypocrisy and arrogance. Besides Snowden's disclosure, it is still unknown what else the US, a country which once condemned China for cyber attacks, has done to China.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The government doesnt have the time or resources to have a person moniter each of the 300,000,000 people

---

Add a few more zeros and ask yourself how does China manages to do it.

Quote:

---

To qualify: I dont agree that a survelance state or anything should be allowed to continue, I'm just trying to understand how people can be fine with such happening.

---

I perfectly understand, that's what I try to do 90% of the time when I converse with people about these kind of things. But one thing I have picked up on in my 21 years on this planet is that some times the one liners that people come up with to justify what they think can run circles around you simply because they no connection resembling anything logical but somehow is a verbal manifestation of pure apathy.

Quote:

---

We are nowhere near having computers sophisticated enough to effectively replace an attentive security guard at a camera. Unless you've attracted attention or are committing a crime so obvious even a computer can tell, a computerised security camera's footage will never be seen by anyone in the government.

---

Heat flux, heart rate, other metabolic symptoms can all be built into a holistic program meant to send red flags.

Sci fi? Last I heard, the new Kinect coming out has the ability to tell you your heart rate while you wave your arms in your living room like an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Add a few more zeros and ask yourself how does China manages to do it.

---

That's a good question because despite thier protests I highly doubt they do. A survelance state can keep track of you with cameras and email snooping, but to have someone watching all of it is physically impossible.

How something like this would work would be to have everything recorded and stored until the government has a reason to take an interest in a person. Then the person's data is pulled up and examined by people. However, with this method, most people's data will remain unwatched as most people will not attract government interest, and it's easy to accept the data being recorded with the understanding that if you dont do anything bad the data wont be viewed and used against you.

Quote:

---

I perfectly understand, that's what I try to do 90% of the time when I converse with people about these kind of things. But one thing I have picked up on in my 21 years on this planet is that some times the one liners that people come up with to justify what they think can run circles around you simply because they no connection resembling anything logical but somehow is a verbal manifestation of pure apathy.

---

Yup. Disillusionment's a female dog.

Quote:

---

Heat flux, heart rate, other metabolic symptoms can all be built into a holistic program meant to send red flags.

---

I doubt that a red flag system would work very well if they are using Heat flux, heart rate and other metabolic symptoms considering we dont really have a unique "I'm acting subversive against the government" behavior pattern, the amount of false alarms of a computerised system will probably be too much to be worth it.

Personally, I think the main threat of a 1984 scenario isnt the constant surveilance, it's the culture of informants where everyone is watching and reporting everyone else for disloyalty, where your neigbours are doing the government's job for it. Though, I think america is not in much danger of that developing any time this century.

I still dont want people having the power to listen in on my damn phone calls!

Quote:

---

Sci fi? Last I heard, the new Kinect coming out has the ability to tell you your heart rate while you wave your arms in your living room like an idiot.

---

I wonder if it actually tells you your heart rate or is it some sort of equation that the machine just fills in with the rate of wild flailing observed?

Senators skip classified briefing on NSA snooping to catch flights home

Quote:

---

A recent briefing by senior intelligence officials on surveillance programs failed to attract even half of the Senate, showing the lack of enthusiasm in Congress for learning about classified security programs.

---

We can always count on our elected officials to keep their priorities straight, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Senators skip classified briefing on NSA snooping to catch flights home

We can always count on our elected officials to keep their priorities straight, huh?

---

None pointed out that they are the priority 1 target perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

That's a good question because despite thier protests I highly doubt they do. A survelance state can keep track of you with cameras and email snooping, but to have someone watching all of it is physically impossible.

How something like this would work would be to have everything recorded and stored until the government has a reason to take an interest in a person. Then the person's data is pulled up and examined by people. However, with this method, most people's data will remain unwatched as most people will not attract government interest, and it's easy to accept the data being recorded with the understanding that if you dont do anything bad the data wont be viewed and used against you.

---

Technology is capable of a lot more than that. The computers can filter the data, sort the data, search for keywords, patterns and so on. Usually this doesn't just involve technology but also e.g. psychological research and results from research regarding human behavior. Companies already collect customer data because they can run powerful analyses on it. Basically the system will tell them who to have a closer look at and who not. If they want to expand on it, I suggest searching for small-time criminals and having the central system automatically distribute the info about crime and person to the local police departments based on where the suspect lives. That might require it becoming a bit more open but now that it's out there and noone cares, it's a logical next step to make America safer. And then include more cameras, you really need more camera feeds for the system. And open letters and packages sent via normal mail, currently that's a huge black box in criminal investigation, think of how many criminals get away with sending a letter instead of an e-mail!

People do realize that your voice is a finger print. That commerical systems can use your voice as a biometric key, that during a call the stress levels of a person can be measured and that a call can be diverted to a senior rep or tagged for QA.

Most of the top voice recording firms are Israeli.

Not only can your voice be fingerprinted. But voice to text allows tagging of keywords and phrases too.

That's just what a typical commerical contact centre can do.

"your call may be recorded for training and quality improvent"

Banks have already started replacing PIN with voice identification.

So not only will the like of NSA be able to figure out which numbers get called. If they have access to the recordings they would be able to get a transcript that can be sorted by machines, checked for stress levels in the voice and figure out who the people on either end are.

Do you think that is new?

In 1993 Pablo Escobar was identified from a 17 second phone call and a team was dispatched to liquidate him, which they did. This was at a time when NSA was only allowed to do such things outside the US.

I am sure they have progressed far beyond what is commercially available today.

Remember a week or so ago an NBC news team was talking about being able to track you in your home using WIFI

No, it's not new. What has increased is the speed and accuracy to do it.

For instance you can speak a four digit code over a phone. The commercial systems will ID you from the voice metrics with that phrase. So if an off the shelf system can do that for your banking, imagine what else they can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

That's a good question because despite thier protests I highly doubt they do. A survelance state can keep track of you with cameras and email snooping, but to have someone watching all of it is physically impossible.

How something like this would work would be to have everything recorded and stored until the government has a reason to take an interest in a person. Then the person's data is pulled up and examined by people. However, with this method, most people's data will remain unwatched as most people will not attract government interest, and it's easy to accept the data being recorded with the understanding that if you dont do anything bad the data wont be viewed and used against you.

---

Ultimately, what is the difference if the people behave the same under either one?

I fear I fail to see how that is relevant to how people are able to rationalize accepting constant survelance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I fear I fail to see how that is relevant to how people are able to rationalize accepting constant survelance.

---

Their rationalization is less of convincing themselves that there is no threat in the first place and more convincing themselves that this isn't the dystopia they should be afraid of.

But if either case renders them unto the same condition, their rationalizations are all moot to begin with.

Quote:

---

Their rationalization is less of convincing themselves that there is no threat in the first place and more convincing themselves that this isn't the dystopia they should be afraid of.

---

Privacy is overrated. Srsly.