House votes to continue NSA spying on citizens

[HopAlongBunny]

[rvg]

A few half decent worms firing off of a midsized botnet emailing the right keywords to every contact on an infected machine, and the whole surveillance system will be in deep trouble.

[Papewaio]

Except NSA probably has first access to day one exploits and MS will patch it.

Also with standard server storage deduplication that same file will just be stored once and indexed against many. Not much storage required.

[Husar]

The correct way to change this is to organize, and elect representatives whom will change the law and afford the same protections to phone and e-traffic that the post gets (which was a big battle in its day)

Oh, that would be a good point if the post weren't actually monitored as well:

Source you won't like: http://rt.com/usa/us-nsa-mail-spying-706/
Source with partially related content: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us...anted=all&_r=0
Source on subject: http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-usp...efore-delivery
Another source on subject: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3694589.html

Now they're not reading the contents yet, but they do provide all the information about origin and destination that law enforcement asks for it seems.

[Beskar]

Secure Email servers such as Lavabit (one of many) are being taken offline by the United States government.

The Lavabit website says this:

My Fellow Users,

I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.

What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.

Sincerely,
Ladar Levison
Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC

[a completely inoffensive name]

Stop using the internet.
Pay in cash.
Encrypt your computer.

I went to Kohl's to buy some shorts and they asked if I wanted to sign up for a Kohl's card. I said sure, why not. When I got my Ralph's card, they didn't even have me turn in the paperwork, cashier just gave me a card and as far as I know, neither my name nor phone number is even associated with it.

But Kohl's? They wanted my SSN in order to get the card. Hell no. I told the lady I forgot my number and to forget about it. She then looked at me like I was an idiot and asked how I did not know my SSN. I said, idk I rarely need it, just let me buy my shorts and leave lady. I would rather have people think I am an idiot than paranoid. It's probably safer that way in the first place.

[Papewaio]

I thought paranoid was the easy one to pull off... But if you want to pull off a lie go with your strengths.

They weren't shorts, they were hot pants ... At least that is what the NSA brief of briefs said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oooh. I am such an idiot. The Kohl's card might have been like a credit card. When they say "Do you want to get our card and save 15%?" How am I supposed to know its more than just a data gathering discount card?

[Tuuvi]

A Kohl's card is a credit card. I work at JC Penney and we have to try to get people to sign up for store credit cards as well.

I always get nervous when I ask someone if they would like to open a JC Penney card and they say "yes" without even blinking, especially when they don't speak English well. I worry that they don't realize they're signing up for a credit card.

I hate pushing those things so bad.

[Fisherking]

Making You 'Comfortable' with Spying Is Obama's Big NSA Fix
Posted By Shane Harris Friday, August 9, 2013 - 5:26 PM

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Barack Obama held a press conference on Friday afternoon, supposedly to announce reforms of the NSA's far-flung surveillance programs. In reality, the White House briefing was the start of a marketing campaign for the spy programs that have turned so controversial in recent months. And the president's message really boiled down to this: It's more important to persuade people surveillance is useful and legal than to make structural changes to the programs.
"The question is, how do I make the American people more comfortable?" Obama said.
Not that Obama's unwilling to make any changes to America's surveillance driftnets -- and he detailed a few of them -- but his overriding concern was that people didn't believe him when he said there was nothing to fear.
In an awkward analogy, the president said that if he'd told his wife Michelle that he had washed the dishes after dinner, she might not believe him. So he might have to take her into the kitchen and show her the evidence.
The tour of the NSA's kitchen appeared today in the form of two "white papers," one produced by the Justice Department, another by the NSA, that offered a robust defense of the legal basis for the programs, and their value, but offered practically no new details to the administration's already public defense. If the president meant to offer more proof that the programs really are fine, it was not to be found in the information his administration released today.
What structural alterations the president said he is willing to make to the surveillance regime mostly took the form of initial sketches and broad commitments to balance "security and liberty." In perhaps his biggest concession, Obama said he was willing to consider changing procedures in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorizes NSA surveillance, so that an opposing position to the government's could be heard in certain circumstances. Without committing to any specifics, he also said he'd work with Congress to "pursue appropriate reforms" to the bulk phone records program. And Obama announced he'd convene an independent review board on the state of national security technology and its role in modern society. (It might take the form of this one, which was convened a decade ago.)

But these changes, while not merely cosmetic, have already been proposed by members of Congress and outside experts. The president offered no proposals to fundamentally change the surveillance programs, because as far as he's concerned, they don't need to be changed.
Now if he could just make everyone see that.
Friday was a start. In his most extensive remarks to date about the controversy over surveillance programs that has dogged his administration, President Obama sought to assuage his critics, and the public at large, that there is nothing to fear from the National Security Agency. And he should know, because he's the president.

"If you start seeing a bunch of headlines saying 'U.S, Big Brother looking down on you,'" Obama said at an afternoon White House press conference, "understandably people would be concerned. I would be too if I wasn't inside the government."
The crux of the president's message rested on his fundamental and considered belief that the NSA's global surveillance programs, including those that collect the phone records of millions of Americans, are both legal and tightly regulated. The president, who as a candidate railed against the intelligence excesses of the NSA under George W. Bush, said today that he'd been skeptical of those programs, and that once in office, having had the chance to review them, found that they were essential.
"The two programs at issue offer valuable intelligence that helps us protect the American people and they're worth preserving," Obama said, referring to the bulk collection of phone records and electronic surveillance of foreigners overseas, which frequently sweeps in the communications of American citizens.
Obama resisted any suggestion that the leaks by former NSA-contractor Ed Snowden had caused him to rethink his position. Indeed, he said he'd initiated a review of intelligence programs before Snowden began providing details about them to the press two months ago. As a result, Obama said he decided to "tighten some bolts" by adding additional layers of oversight of secretive intelligence gathering.
And it was those steps, he said, as well as the constitutional system of checks and balances that has kept the NSA from violating Americans' privacy, overstepping legal bounds, or reverting to the kinds of domestic spying that were a hallmark of darker days, when the intelligence community routinely spied on some Americans to monitor their political activities. The programs are useful, legal, and working just fine, he insisted.
But, Obama allowed, not everyone in the country is so confident.

"It's not enough for me as the President to have confidence in these programs. The American people have to have confidence in them as well."

[HopAlongBunny]

Just a couple thousand errors: human fallibility and all that

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americ...553987562.html

[drone]

Quadrupled the oversight budget, doubled the number of violations and "mistakes". I'd bring up Hanlon's razor, but I'm starting to think both malice and stupidity are in full effect.

[Fisherking]

Quadrupled the oversight budget, doubled the number of violations and "mistakes". I'd bring up Hanlon's razor, but I'm starting to think both malice and stupidity are in full effect.

I would argue that the razor has it backwards.

It is more like when an organization does something malicious and gets caught, cover it as a stupid error by an underling.

[drone]

A nice little addition to the brouhaha: Who watches the watchers? Apparently the 3 blind mice.

The leader of the secret court that is supposed to provide critical oversight of the government’s vast spying programs said that its ability to do so is limited and that it must trust the government to report when it improperly spies on Americans.

The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said the court lacks the tools to independently verify how often the government’s surveillance breaks the court’s rules that aim to protect Americans’ privacy. Without taking drastic steps, it also cannot check the veracity of the government’s assertions that the violations its staff members report are unintentional mistakes.

“The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court,” its chief, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in a written statement to The Washington Post. “The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing [government] compliance with its orders.”

[HopAlongBunny]

Gives a whole new meaning to the term organized crime.

[Fisherking]

Gives a whole new meaning to the term organized crime.

Not even in the same league. When the mob tell you something, you can believe them.

[rvg]

Not even in the same league. When the mob tell you something, you can believe them.

Unless they're lying.

[Fisherking]

Ok, so everyone lies. Some occasionally tell a lie but lately the Government never seems to have a compelling enough reason to tell the truth, on anything.


Anyway, a link for those who need all the reasons pointed out why this is not a good idea:

http://piratetimes.net/what-is-a-sur...-good-for-you/

[Fisherking]

And this too: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/ma...ewanted=1&_r=0

[HopAlongBunny]

Pretenders pull crimes and never get caught
Pro's have the state give them money w/o oversight...
And bury the event in "secrecy" SsssHhhhh!

[Papewaio]

Reading that NY Times article I came to the conclusion that Snowden isn't paranoid, he just knows they are watching.

I understood that your location can and is tracked... Remember the iPhone debacle which shows it tracks the user... Wonder where all that information ended up.

What surprised me is that like laptops the phones mike can be tapped... Probably also the cameras too.

[Fisherking]

Even the computer in your car engine can be hacked. Also, smart appliances.

[Sir Moody]

Even the computer in your car engine can be hacked. Also, smart appliances.

that's a little exaggerated.

While cars can be hacked they don't usually have remote connections so you would have to plug into them directly which limits the scope of any possible hacks - of course if you have remote assistance or wireless of some kind as an extra then this is a different ball game...

Smart applications however are one of the easiest ways for Hackers to gain entry to a network and can be MASSIVE security holes...

[Papewaio]

Screw the NSA, I'm worried about when the global network of robot doom wakes up.

What better way to accidentally create a singularity then creating a nerve center with massive computational power that can track what all the cells are upto.

[Fisherking]

that's a little exaggerated.

While cars can be hacked they don't usually have remote connections so you would have to plug into them directly which limits the scope of any possible hacks - of course if you have remote assistance or wireless of some kind as an extra then this is a different ball game...

Smart applications however are one of the easiest ways for Hackers to gain entry to a network and can be MASSIVE security holes...

Orion VIS, OnStar, In-Drive autos, and any car with a remote navigation system may be subject to remote hacking. That is a lot of cars. Particularly US models.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar

https://www.onstar.com/web/portal/securityexplore?g=1

[Tellos Athenaios]

that's a little exaggerated.

While cars can be hacked they don't usually have remote connections so you would have to plug into them directly which limits the scope of any possible hacks - of course if you have remote assistance or wireless of some kind as an extra then this is a different ball game...

Quite a lot of them are equipped with Bluetooth, and wouldn't you know it: there've been a few example attacks which result in a complete take-over of the car, including disabling input (from the steering wheel and pedals) and spoofing sensor data to the instruments effectively turning the car into a RF-controlled toy using Bluetooth as an attack vector. (Compromising the Bluetooth enabled system to gain access to the CAN bus...) Also, similar good times are to be had with pacemakers (quite a few of which are also equipped with RF comms and can be remotely tampered with as a result...).

[Sir Moody]

Quite a lot of them are equipped with Bluetooth, and wouldn't you know it: there've been a few example attacks which result in a complete take-over of the car, including disabling input (from the steering wheel and pedals) and spoofing sensor data to the instruments effectively turning the car into a RF-controlled toy using Bluetooth as an attack vector. (Compromising the Bluetooth enabled system to gain access to the CAN bus...) Also, similar good times are to be had with pacemakers (quite a few of which are also equipped with RF comms and can be remotely tampered with as a result...).

I have seen these - slight problem however - Bluetooth is short range which again limits the vector for attacks (you would need to be very close to the car) and if done correctly (sadly this isn't always the case) would require input from inside the car via pairing etc

The problem will be with the coming rise of internet enabled cars which are just starting to hit the market... they are potentially very dangerous since they can be like roaming hot spots... however again this can be mitigated by not connecting the main Cars computer with the new functionality (ie installing a second computer with no hard connections)

[drone]

I have seen these - slight problem however - Bluetooth is short range which again limits the vector for attacks (you would need to be very close to the car) and if done correctly (sadly this isn't always the case) would require input from inside the car via pairing etc

A bluetooth device paired with a longer ranged transmitter, magnetically attached to the undercarraige, would do the trick.

Groklaw just shut down. Lots of speculation on whether this is the result of an NSL/gag order, just like Lavabit.

[Sir Moody]

A bluetooth device paired with a longer ranged transmitter, magnetically attached to the undercarraige, would do the trick.

Groklaw just shut down. Lots of speculation on whether this is the result of an NSL/gag order, just like Lavabit.

yes but it would need to be paired - which as I said isn't easy since it requires access to the car first - you couldn't just slip one on a car and then hack it... assuming the manufacturer has the paring system correct and requires a user generated key + input (I know my BMW does but i cant attest for the other manufacturers)

[Fisherking]

If there is an electronic device, assume the government has a key or back door to it.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...administrators
No more Snowdens, no more whistleblowers is the goal.


These, you may not have seen:
http://www.albanytribune.com/1308201...-review-group/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9780UY20130809


And a portion of an opinion piece on moral relativism, dealing with this topic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Current Sales Pitch

Just take a look at the attitude of the Obama Administration and the mainstream media towards Edward Snowden and his recent asylum approved by Russia.

The White House, rather than admitting wrongdoing in its support for the NSA’s mass surveillance of American citizens without warrant, or even attempting to deny the existence of the PRISM program, is now instead trying to promote NSA spying as essential to our well being while wagging a finger of shame at Snowden and the Russian government for damaging their domestic spy network. Obama has lamented on Russia’s stance, stating that their thinking is “backwards.”#

Did I miss something here? I’m no fan of the Russian oligarchy, but shouldn’t Obama and most of the NSA (let alone every other Federal alphabet agency) be sitting in a dark hole somewhere awaiting trial for violating the Constitution on almost every level? Yet, we are instead supposed to despise Snowden for exposing the crime they committed and distrust any country that happens to give him shelter?

Due to public outcry, Obama has attempted to pacify critics by announcing plans to make NSA mass surveillance “more transparent”. First, I would like to point out that he did NOT offer to end NSA spying on Americans without warrant, which is what a President with any ounce of integrity would have done. Second, Obama’s calls for more transparency have come at the exact same time as the NSA announces its plans to remove 90 percent of its systems administrators to make sure another “Snowden incident” does not occur.

Finally, when the public called for an investigation into the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence in the handling of the Snowden affair and the PRISM program, the White House appointed none other than James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, as part of the team that would "investigate" any wrongdoing.# The Obama Administration insists that Clapper, a documented liar who told Congress that the NSA was not involved in mass domestic spying, was not going to "head" the panel of investigators, even though a White House memo specifically named Clapper as the man who would form the so-called "independent group".# The White House still admits that Clapper will be involved in the process.
So, just to reiterate, the people who perpetrated the criminal act of warrant-less surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans, and who were caught red-handed lying about it, are now appointed to investigate their own crime.

Does this sound like a government that plans on becoming “more transparent”?

Ask yourself, would Obama have called for ANY transparency over the NSA whatsoever if Snowden had never come forward? Of course not! The exposure of the crime has led to lies and empty placation, nothing more.

In the meantime, numerous other political miscreants have hit the media trail, campaigning for the NSA as well as other surveillance methods, bellowing to the rafters over the absolute necessity of domestic spy programs. Fifteen years ago, the government would have tried to sweep all of this under the rug. Today, they want to acclimate us to the inevitability of the crime, stating that we had better get used to it.

Their position? That Snowden’s whistleblowing put America at risk. My questions is, how? How did Snowden’s exposure of an unConstitutional and at bottom illegal surveillance program used against hundreds of millions of innocent Americans do our country harm? Is it the position of the White House that the truth is dangerous, and deceit is safety?

I suspect this is the case considering the recent treatment of military whistleblower Bradley Manning, who has been accused by some to have “aided Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts” through his actions.# How did Manning do this? By releasing information, including battlefield videos, that were hidden from the public containing proof of U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps I’m just a traditionalist and not hip to modern diplomatic strategy, but I would think that if you don’t want to be blamed for war crimes, then you probably shouldn’t commit war crimes. And, if you don’t want the enemy to gain new recruits, you should probably avoid killing innocent civilians and pissing off their families (there is also ample evidence suggesting that the CIA has done FAR more deliberate recruiting for Al Qaeda than Bradley Manning could have ever accomplished on accident). Just a thought.
So, to keep track - U.S. government funds and trains Al Qaeda, but is the good guy. U.S. government commits war crimes, but is the good guy. U.S. government hides the truth from the American people, but is the good guy. Bradley Manning exposes war crimes, and is the bad guy. Moral relativism at its finest. Moving on...