I expect this is "old news" for the NSA. What I want to know is what is the NSA up to today! Is it a secret?
1
I find it difficult to believe in this great country that we cannot have great MIS/data minds to permanently develop a program to permanently protect our sites and stop cyber theft once and for all.
Edward Snowden lacks credibility and currently has no loyalties to the United States. There are obvious issues involving hackers and "exigent circumstances" do exist that require us to move swiftly and with certainty to defend this nation. Obama trusts his agencies and understands our vulnerability right now. We the People understand that surveillance will have its limitations in the future, however, emergency breaches like the one attributed to the Chinese today, will lead us to use whatever means possible to effectuate a secure environment for the American people.
2
Sounds like you would not have liked George Washington or Ben Franklin? I mean hey in their time they were considered traitors.
1
Yet with all this capability for no-warrant searches, the government could not detect the recent Office of Personal Management "break-in" and theft of 4 million federal worker information. Obama may trust his agencies but if so his trust is misplaced.
As for the surveillance described here---exactly what has it prevented? An effective secure environment is defensive in nature, not offensive against its own people.
As for the surveillance described here---exactly what has it prevented? An effective secure environment is defensive in nature, not offensive against its own people.
1
Imagine how bad the breach would have been if Snowden had been employed there!
But being a former fed IT guy, the problem usually turns to funding and Congress ineptitude to comprehend the extent of funding requirement to maintain secure data - as the story pointed out (in case you didn't read it).
"The pool of trained information security professionals is shallow, and the government needs to invest in tracking down and retaining top-tier talent," he said. "There's just not enough in any organization."
The administration has acknowledged that issue: In May, OPM gave federal agencies approval to go outside of traditional civil service hiring procedures when appointing people to digital positions tied to a planned reboot of government information technology systems.
But being a former fed IT guy, the problem usually turns to funding and Congress ineptitude to comprehend the extent of funding requirement to maintain secure data - as the story pointed out (in case you didn't read it).
"The pool of trained information security professionals is shallow, and the government needs to invest in tracking down and retaining top-tier talent," he said. "There's just not enough in any organization."
The administration has acknowledged that issue: In May, OPM gave federal agencies approval to go outside of traditional civil service hiring procedures when appointing people to digital positions tied to a planned reboot of government information technology systems.
Bruce Fein, - Ron Paul campaign "legal" advisor, author of a Libertarian manifesto - that he spent the months before the Snowden NSA heist promoting at personal appearances with his sidekick, Glenn Greenwald, is a good bet to be revealed as the ghost-writer for Snowden's Moscow propaganda machine.
NSA is NOT monitoring any terrorists. IF they did, they would have caught the perps in Garland, TX and Boston and other terrorists attacks the last several years. But, they haven't, why? Because they are NOT monitoring terrorists, but the citizens. The people in the WH and DC want to monitor people who don't agree with them, and THAT is unconstitutional. Nixon was in trouble just for taping a group. BUT, this President is monitoring the whole nation illegally.
This needs to stop now!!!
This needs to stop now!!!
5
Really, this doesn't make any sense. It's like saying you said you went fishing, but you didn't really go fishing because you didn't catch all the fish.
1
Good example of Opposite World...Garland and Boston terrorist were home grown American sympathizers, US Citizens, not foreign terrorist.
You don't get it, I get that.
You don't get it, I get that.
2
You have no credible point to make. You blame NSA for not catching any domestic wackos, yet are upset that the NSA might be monitoring U.S. citizens. NSA is not U.S. law enforcement, and can not monitor U.S. citizens without any clear and evident terrorist ties. So give them a break.
So, Rand Pauls little filibuster to force the Patriot Act to expire was all smoke and mirrors? It appears that the weasels in Con-gress had the follow-on to that heinous piece of legislation waiting in the wings.
What I find quite incredible is the President Obama who has wrapped himself in liberal sheepskin appears to have little concern for a basic civil right of most Americans - the right to privacy. He merrily lies to the public about transparency and his concern for human rights and goes along with all the nefarious activities of the intelligence agencies. Curiously these agencies overall seem quite incompetent despite their amassing mega quantities of data. The Chinese and Russian hackers are a lot better it appears than Obama's spies.
3
Haven't heard a lot about Russian or Chinese agencies being broken into, have you? Hmmmm, wonder why that is....
What can I say. I'm a card-carrying liberal and bleeding heart. And I applaud this effort.
This is new front. The new battle lines. The new cold war.
Clearly the Chinese and the Russians aren't going to stop trying to serious damage through the Internet, and neither will hackers.
This is new front. The new battle lines. The new cold war.
Clearly the Chinese and the Russians aren't going to stop trying to serious damage through the Internet, and neither will hackers.
2
Hunting for "cyber signatures" and searching for malware make it sound like the NSA is doing far more than is spoken here. It is most likely that they are now filtering ALL foreign IP Packets, and it wouldn't surprise me if they are archiving it all for at least a few days- after all that massive Utah data center can't sit idle under their watch... and make no mistake, by hook or by crook they still WATCH EVERYTHING.
All nations are spying on each other. Nobody is safe now, so it doesn't matter how much you hate the idea of government watching you. I don't like it too, but in our reality, with our mindset, we have no other way but conform with this rules.
1
While we wring our hands over loss of privacy and government intrusion, the Chinese and others are stealing us blind. Unleash the FBI and NSA to strike back and demonstrate that there is cost associated with these so called intrusions (more like invasions).
Privacy. I hate to break the news, but if you are on the internet there is no such thing as privacy. Sorry
Privacy. I hate to break the news, but if you are on the internet there is no such thing as privacy. Sorry
3
The FBI and NSA have been unleashed. We have traded our privacy for security and now do not have either.
1
Why haven't we SUED all those who lose control of our data into the GROUND? That's how a corrupt structure reconstructs itself, by law.
I'm willing to bet that all the computers in the NSA building say "Made in China" on the bottom.
The NSA should charge China back for intelligence work since they probably automatically get a copy of everything.
As long as the computers, switches and other equipment are made in China then consider the NSA to be open source.
The NSA should charge China back for intelligence work since they probably automatically get a copy of everything.
As long as the computers, switches and other equipment are made in China then consider the NSA to be open source.
Why have we forgotten as a nation that it is not the governments responsibility but our responsibility to take care of ourselves. There are products and technologies and an entire industry available to detect and prevent network intrusions, malware, trojans, worms, viruses. The ONLY time a law enforcement agency should be involved is when a attack has been attempted or is underway.
As far as I am concerned, our government cannot be too intrusive in fighting cyber-crime. I want the NSA and FBI to have carte blanche in intercepting all internet traffic entering and leaving the United States.
All the critics of government surveillance are aiding and abetting our enemies, especially China and Russia, and cyber criminals.
Edward Snowden is the worst kind of traitor, and I hope he is returned to the U.S. and stands trial for treason.
All the critics of government surveillance are aiding and abetting our enemies, especially China and Russia, and cyber criminals.
Edward Snowden is the worst kind of traitor, and I hope he is returned to the U.S. and stands trial for treason.
1
The NSA is much more interested in eviscerating the Fourth Amendments, undermining the Constitution, and ending Constitutional government than in defending the US from foreign hackers.
The first three empower NSA criminals and enrich NSA contractors. Defending the US, not so much.
The first three empower NSA criminals and enrich NSA contractors. Defending the US, not so much.
3
Once again a potentially embarassing revelation about the government's activities or a setback to its operations is met by an attempt by the government to release a story more favorable to itself. On Thursday the Obama administration "announces" the widespread hacking of our computer system by the Chinese. We then learn the next day about the government's secret and warrantless surveillance of the internet activity of Americans. A similar pattern occurred after the fall of Ramada which the administration attempted to offset with the announcement that a prominent leader of ISIS had been killed in a brilliant operation authorized by Obama himself. It's the usual orchestration of the news that has characterized tyranny throughout history. It is all the more pernicious when it comes from an administration that pretends it believes in protecting the rights of its citizens, but apparently does so only when its own agenda is thereby advanced.
It sounds like just what the government should be doing, protecting the nation from cyber attack and hacking.
Good hunting!
Good hunting!
1
Putin would be proud of how we've become a surveillance state similar to his country.
2
If you think the U.S. is at all similar to Putin's Russia, you need to start broadening your horizons.
1
I've noted several comments along the lines of "Whatever the government does to go after the bad guys is OK with me".
I'm not so willing to give the government carte blanche, including breaking its own laws. I've had enough with torture, invasions of privacy, and the executions of known American citizens without due process.
Laws that reign in government power were not created by accident. These lawless behaviors are bad enough when the government is more or less trying to protect the greater population. But the apparatuses can become the tools of tyranny when yielded by those whose goals are not the greater good, but power.
Most people have forgotten what Hoover and Nixon did. I have not.
I'm not so willing to give the government carte blanche, including breaking its own laws. I've had enough with torture, invasions of privacy, and the executions of known American citizens without due process.
Laws that reign in government power were not created by accident. These lawless behaviors are bad enough when the government is more or less trying to protect the greater population. But the apparatuses can become the tools of tyranny when yielded by those whose goals are not the greater good, but power.
Most people have forgotten what Hoover and Nixon did. I have not.
2
Apparently laws that "reign in government power" have no effect.
One final comment with respect to the NSA and a little known part of what they do -
The Five Eyes Alliance, as revealed by Snowden, and published by NBC News, The Intercept, (Glen Greenwald), and others, are engaged in a massive worldwide disinformation campaign, designed to discredit any comment and report that outs them in any way - see excerpt and link:
"Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:"
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
The Five Eyes Alliance, as revealed by Snowden, and published by NBC News, The Intercept, (Glen Greenwald), and others, are engaged in a massive worldwide disinformation campaign, designed to discredit any comment and report that outs them in any way - see excerpt and link:
"Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:"
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
3
How about one effort to tackle the "criminal" non government affiliated hackers and a separate one to protect government concerns and a separate effort for security that is not mega data? All three areas have a negative impact.
That money stolen by criminals does terrific damage and the inability of government to protect victims proactively undercuts faith in the U.S. Currently protections are sloppy from telecom carriers to device manufacturers.
And let's protect the whistle blowers who help drive buried issues into the light outside corporate or gov resistance to making things work.
That money stolen by criminals does terrific damage and the inability of government to protect victims proactively undercuts faith in the U.S. Currently protections are sloppy from telecom carriers to device manufacturers.
And let's protect the whistle blowers who help drive buried issues into the light outside corporate or gov resistance to making things work.
This evil regime cares not about the law. It appears more and more like a dictatorship daily. If you think that Congress or the law has any effect on this despot and his heavy handed thugs, think again.
President Obama uses the IRS to harass and the NSA to spy on hard-working Americans so he can maintain a police state that would be the envy of Richard Nixon The president's only concern about the hackers is that they obtained some of his emails hopefully they have Hillary's
Guess it's not a secret anymore ! What this generation needs is a simple game of Milton Bradley "Stratego"
None of this is really new. The attacks of 911 just "legitimized", so far as it goes, what information can be gathered and garnered about each of us, the Constitution be dammed , while technology broadened the scope and speed of that information gathering. Wake up people. It truly is a brave new world out there and there is very little, if anything, we can do about it.
Is government monitoring of the internet to guard against hackers any different then setting up radar traps on highways to catch speeders? A police officer doesn't need a warrant to stop a driver who has committed a moving violation.
The Intelligence services are not very good anymore so I guess they feel they need that data. Maybe they should go back to their original duties to learn how to do it again.
Much of this "hacking" problem would NOT be an issue if the US government encouraged technology companies to implement strong encryption and forgo the idea of "backdoor" access for privileged government agencies.
If encryption could continue to evolve, then nobody would be up in anyone's business, and societal/virtual chaos would be whittled down. Then intelligence agencies will have to do some real heavy work -- old school trade craft. Installing human spies as intelligence.
Government's insistence for "backdoor" access to global information presents itself (ironically) as a dangerous LOTR scenario:
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
If encryption could continue to evolve, then nobody would be up in anyone's business, and societal/virtual chaos would be whittled down. Then intelligence agencies will have to do some real heavy work -- old school trade craft. Installing human spies as intelligence.
Government's insistence for "backdoor" access to global information presents itself (ironically) as a dangerous LOTR scenario:
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
1
Though many posting make the distinction between the rights of citizens (privacy, security, equality), the same administration exploiting the foreigner/citizen distinction to justify broad spying powers, REFUSES to protect our borders, require IDs for voting, or restrict welfare, employment, education to documented citizens.
The administration seems to want everything both ways, destroying any advantage in being an honest, independent, working CITIZEN.
SCOTUS is hearing a case to determine if congressional districts should be drawn to equally represent taxpayers, voters, citizens, or mere residents! ...the shocker is this: we have no list of citizens, or efficient way to generate one.
I suspect SCOTUS will take the easy way out and declare simple residency is sufficient, further eroding the value of legal citizenship, and further justifying NSA's lax attitude in respecting our privacy and the security of our information,
The administration seems to want everything both ways, destroying any advantage in being an honest, independent, working CITIZEN.
SCOTUS is hearing a case to determine if congressional districts should be drawn to equally represent taxpayers, voters, citizens, or mere residents! ...the shocker is this: we have no list of citizens, or efficient way to generate one.
I suspect SCOTUS will take the easy way out and declare simple residency is sufficient, further eroding the value of legal citizenship, and further justifying NSA's lax attitude in respecting our privacy and the security of our information,
My understanding is that everything ever done on a device is stored. I suspected when AT&T and Verizon announced they record every keystroke whether it's deleted or not years back. People are winning court cases because local cops can't divulge info from Stingray and info acquired for "legalized" highway robbery by police.
I think a lot of people writing these comments don't know how the internet actually works.
1) First of all, the internet does not have "borders", so it's very hard to separate "us" from "everyone else."
2) I think people underestimate how hard it is to "figure out" who a piece of information on the internet belongs to without actually looking at it (i.e. collecting it). How do you know if you're collecting information on an American unless you actually look at the information and see what's in it?
3) It's very easy to do things like "spoof" IP addresses. For example, if I'm in China, I can very easily send all of my hacking, spam, or whatever through a US computer, so it looks like I'm actually in the United States. Likewise, someone in the United States can easily have their internet traffic routed through a foreign computer. So you can't just tell the NSA "never investigate criminal behavior coming from a US computer," there might be a foreign computer on the other side of the US machine.
Side note: I'm surprised that people are upset that the NSA might collect their personal information if it's already been stolen by hackers. That's like refusing to let the police in your house after there has been a burglary, and refusing to show them pictures of what has been stolen.
1) First of all, the internet does not have "borders", so it's very hard to separate "us" from "everyone else."
2) I think people underestimate how hard it is to "figure out" who a piece of information on the internet belongs to without actually looking at it (i.e. collecting it). How do you know if you're collecting information on an American unless you actually look at the information and see what's in it?
3) It's very easy to do things like "spoof" IP addresses. For example, if I'm in China, I can very easily send all of my hacking, spam, or whatever through a US computer, so it looks like I'm actually in the United States. Likewise, someone in the United States can easily have their internet traffic routed through a foreign computer. So you can't just tell the NSA "never investigate criminal behavior coming from a US computer," there might be a foreign computer on the other side of the US machine.
Side note: I'm surprised that people are upset that the NSA might collect their personal information if it's already been stolen by hackers. That's like refusing to let the police in your house after there has been a burglary, and refusing to show them pictures of what has been stolen.
4
So, my information that the NSA is "stealing" has already been stolen - and by entities which do not work for you, and me, and every other American?
All this tossing around of the term "Orwellian", but it seems to me the real danger here is those who lower our collective faith in OUR government by perpetually assuming dystopic ill intent and propagating a harmful pessimism. I'd venture a guess that many of these commenters are so "disillusioned" they rarely vote ("doesn't make a difference anyway").
There is no conspiracy theory here. The government is not a mysterious intangible entity with ulterior motives. The NSA doesn't care about your emails. Chances are, it's trying to trace international cyber theft - for which I am personally grateful.
All this tossing around of the term "Orwellian", but it seems to me the real danger here is those who lower our collective faith in OUR government by perpetually assuming dystopic ill intent and propagating a harmful pessimism. I'd venture a guess that many of these commenters are so "disillusioned" they rarely vote ("doesn't make a difference anyway").
There is no conspiracy theory here. The government is not a mysterious intangible entity with ulterior motives. The NSA doesn't care about your emails. Chances are, it's trying to trace international cyber theft - for which I am personally grateful.
3
Chances are they are trying to trace secret information of european Boing competitors.
No one can save us except ourselves, so we should oppose this Spying Act as much as we can: the state can not protect it's own information, but it is asking us to provide our data. God only know, where this data will go and how it hill be used, if there is one more breach in the system.
2
cyber war will be the war of the next century. We have to be able to protect ourselves against cyber invasion and attacks against hackers and
government sponsored cyber attackers just like we protect our country against
military threats. The price we pay would be most likely, the compromising of our privacy. Cyber attacks are now the most serious threats to our systems aside from nuclear war.
government sponsored cyber attackers just like we protect our country against
military threats. The price we pay would be most likely, the compromising of our privacy. Cyber attacks are now the most serious threats to our systems aside from nuclear war.
2
From a non-US perspective it's kind of bizarre when americans drop the phrase "protection" over and over in discussions about surveillance.
Countering hackers is a worthy goal, and it seems to be accepted that many hackers are located in other countries. But unless US agencies have police powers in these countries, an important question is whether anything productive will happen just because hackers are located electronically.
2
The internet has blurred the line between national security and domestic criminality. As fast as these things happen, how is one to determine who is doing what to who? Hackers working for the Chinese government routinely hack American companies for trade secrets to distribute to foreign competitors. Is that spying or simple criminality? The breach reported yesterday wherein hackers supposedly based in China stole personal information on 4 million Americans might be a national security issue yet such thefts in the past have also been used for personal enrichment. And how best to handle the SONY hack attributed to North Korea?
The point being that perhaps we start looking at the NSA's function as a new paradigm, that the cyberworld is a hybrid of both military and civilian threat, and that defenses against both must be coordinated. Short of walling off domestic internet traffic from the rest of the world (if that is even possible), I'm not sure how we can square all that with legitimate privacy concerns, but clearly the current approach is inadequate.
The point being that perhaps we start looking at the NSA's function as a new paradigm, that the cyberworld is a hybrid of both military and civilian threat, and that defenses against both must be coordinated. Short of walling off domestic internet traffic from the rest of the world (if that is even possible), I'm not sure how we can square all that with legitimate privacy concerns, but clearly the current approach is inadequate.
6
Why can't encryption break the back of cyber thieves/spies?
I forgot, without conflict, we got no plot. No plot, no funding. Poor SONY.
I forgot, without conflict, we got no plot. No plot, no funding. Poor SONY.
It's the government, did you really expect them to be successful when they can't prevent their own data?
2
It seems as if the administration and various gov't agencies charged with security are damned if they do and damned if they don't. When there is an intrusion, they are roundly criticized for not preventing it. There are calls for them to know almost instantly who did it and to bring those perpetrators to justice. Yet, there is a constant outcry about the government's intrusion into Americans' right to privacy whenever any surveillance is uncovered.
It is a very difficult and touchy balance. The NSA et al are only human beings doing the best they can to operate in a rapidly evolving cyber world. I, for one, assume that communications, even 'private' ones, are not ever guaranteed to be that way.
I do whatever I can to guard my private information including changing passwords monthly (yes, it's a pain) and keeping close tabs on things like financial accounts. It is a dangerous world and getting more so.
I have little hope that the push-pull between 'good' guys and 'bad' guys, however one defines those, will settle into any kind of equilibrium any time soon.
It is a very difficult and touchy balance. The NSA et al are only human beings doing the best they can to operate in a rapidly evolving cyber world. I, for one, assume that communications, even 'private' ones, are not ever guaranteed to be that way.
I do whatever I can to guard my private information including changing passwords monthly (yes, it's a pain) and keeping close tabs on things like financial accounts. It is a dangerous world and getting more so.
I have little hope that the push-pull between 'good' guys and 'bad' guys, however one defines those, will settle into any kind of equilibrium any time soon.
21
I'm past trying to understand the technical details of all of this. I now assume that pretty much every digital communication and connection anywhere in the world can and will be surveilled at some point in the future by both criminal hackers and government snoopers for their own purposes. It will only be in rare cases where a law suit forces out in the open what happened and how it happened that the public will find out the extent of the surveillance abilities of both public and private communications specialists. If you are doing anything on a computer, a cell phone, a smart phone, or a tablet device, assume whatever you are doing and saying is being detected and recorded somewhere by somebody, and you can't do a thing about it. If you don't like this fact, don't use any of these methods of communication. At this point, U.S. mail may be marginally safer, but I wouldn't count on that either. Pretty much every piece of mail has its picture taken at some point in the U.S. mail system. Please remember to enjoy your new Orwellian society with all of its technological marvels.
18
US Mail is not safer, privacy-wise. USPS can open your mail and read it, keep it, record who is sending what where and when. Google it. It's all in the name if antiterrorism. FedEx, UPS, do, too. You'll have to come up with something else if you want private communication to be private.
1
The US "Snail" mail is being photographed as it is sorted collecting the sender's name if its on the envelope as well as the recipient. We will all need Maxwell Smart's "Cone Of Silence" if we want a private conversation. And the HAL 9000 reads lips.
True, but also remember it would take a monitoring staff of perhaps 1 person for every 10 humans to actually read and review all the digital activities we participate in. Unless there is a secret group of 500 Million such monitors, you can be confident that nobody is actually looking at your stuff, even if it is recorded for posterity.
In so many of the comments to this and a plethora of other NYTimes reports and editorials, the issue of "privacy" is raised, as if it is the ne plus ultra of our fundamental rights. Quote the location of the word "privacy" in the Constitution.
Yes, it is implied by other rights. But nowhere is it an absolute. It must live in concert with the enumerated rights, many of which, taken as absolutes, interfere with absolute interpretations of others. The worst example is that of the First Amendment used by the press to excuse their violation of Constitutionally tested laws -- indeed, their "right" to invade everybody else's supposedly sacrosanct "right" to privacy.
Their are no absolute rights, except possibly the right to life. Indeed, even that is not absolute. Warriors kill in times of conflict, even -- as by snipers -- when not themselves directly endangered. Executions are still legal and, for at least the most heinous of crimes, should be so.
So, in reality, the intellectually constructed "right" to privacy is nowhere near the top of the list. Our nation's right -- and, thus, our individual right -- to survival is so far above that ephemeral concept as to make a comparison of importance of the two rather ludicrous.
Yes, it is implied by other rights. But nowhere is it an absolute. It must live in concert with the enumerated rights, many of which, taken as absolutes, interfere with absolute interpretations of others. The worst example is that of the First Amendment used by the press to excuse their violation of Constitutionally tested laws -- indeed, their "right" to invade everybody else's supposedly sacrosanct "right" to privacy.
Their are no absolute rights, except possibly the right to life. Indeed, even that is not absolute. Warriors kill in times of conflict, even -- as by snipers -- when not themselves directly endangered. Executions are still legal and, for at least the most heinous of crimes, should be so.
So, in reality, the intellectually constructed "right" to privacy is nowhere near the top of the list. Our nation's right -- and, thus, our individual right -- to survival is so far above that ephemeral concept as to make a comparison of importance of the two rather ludicrous.
14
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Sounds like the definition of privacy to me.
"Privacy -- the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people."
Sounds like the definition of privacy to me.
"Privacy -- the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people."
2
Nationalism is above rights? Sounds like the Fascism recipe.
2
But that "right to implied privacy" is extended to pregnant women and the "right to life" is not extended to the child she carries. Does constitutional interpretation depend on who it is being interpreted for?
There is a better way to stop hackers: introduce universal encryption and secure computer systems. In its quest to spy on everyone NSA introduces flaws and backdoors into all our computers, encryption, and electronic systems and has a policy of not informing companies of flaws that NSA discovers. This is because NSA considers spying more important than the security of American systems. The result is a system full of holes for non-NSA hackers to exploit.
16
Agreed. If systems were secure, they'd be out of a job. Like the medical industry needed sick people, the security industry needs hackers and fear. Can you trust people who are spying on you? Are they really non-NSA hackers or do they just want us to think so...? (I know, I know, I'm off my meds ....)
1
Good. You cant leave or enter this country without documentation and they have the right to search anyone to any extent they want as the enter and/or leave, whether you want them to or not and they can force you to do so if you dont want them to. So why shouldnt international communications be subject to the same level of security and scrutiny?
11
It is a bedrock belief of virtually all senior government officials in military/law enforcement circles (who are not bad people like in Novels and TV) that they have vastly superior knowledge and training to evaluate strategies and threats and thereby are in a better position to judge what is and what is not in the public interests as to policy. It is at the ...."and thereby..." that a thinly veiled contempt for the pubic they serve begins to reduce democracy and its liberties to merely an historical--if somewhat quaint and out of touch--- system of governance.
14
"In mid-2012, Justice Department lawyers wrote two secret memos permitting the spy agency to begin hunting on Internet cables, without a warrant and on American soil, for data linked to computer intrusions originating abroad — including traffic that flows to suspicious Internet addresses or contains malware, the documents show."
Exactly where in the US Constitution does it say that civil servants or political appointee lawyers in the Justice Department get to circumvent the privacy rights of Americans? This is illegal regardless what a room of government lawyers say.
Exactly where in the US Constitution does it say that civil servants or political appointee lawyers in the Justice Department get to circumvent the privacy rights of Americans? This is illegal regardless what a room of government lawyers say.
7
This shouldn't surprise anyone. The USA is not the same country it use to be, and our freedom dwindles away by the day. We can thank our leaders and ourselves for this mess. Greed, corruption, and the quest for power ends every great civilization. It's called "evil" folks. Anyway, I would love to comment more, but I probably already got flagged by NSA and I have some shows I would like to finish :). The sheep will be sheep and the wolves, wolves I guess.
5
no, it's not the country it used to be. used to be the FBI could tap the phones of anyone it considered subversive. now the nsa can search anonymized phone records with a warrant. what's different, though, is we've become a nation of cyber exhibitionists and relentless online consumers who have gladly given away our privacy and dignity.
2
But the FBI needed a warrant if they wanted to use what they'd found as evidence. It appears fishing expeditions don;t have that degree of security thanks to the "Patriot" Act.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson.
It's not the surveillance that's the problem, it's that the surveillance can be used to prosecute Americans for unrelated crimes.
7
I doubt you could come up with even one instance where what you say is happening ever occurred!
A debate and resolution about this issue needs to take place and get resolved politically. The Constitution is not a "suicide pact" and all Americans have a right to expect not to be harmed by malicious hackers or data miners. And who-and how- can provide protection to us all?
A debate and resolution about this issue needs to take place and get resolved politically. The Constitution is not a "suicide pact" and all Americans have a right to expect not to be harmed by malicious hackers or data miners. And who-and how- can provide protection to us all?
It might be time to reconsider Nixon's one foreign policy success and re-categorize it instead as an abject failure.
4
I believe the Chinese would be hacking us whether Nixon had opened a relationship with them regardless. If not our security at least our technical data bases.
If we did not appreciate the disclosures of Edward Snowden in forcing the recent surveillance “reform” enacted by Congress, we have another opportunity with this.
It is essential that we know what the government is doing for us and to us.
We would not be having a national debate about the appropriate balance between security and privacy if it were not for the Snowden disclosures.
President Obama should pardon Snowden so he can return to this country and participate in the debate.
It is essential that we know what the government is doing for us and to us.
We would not be having a national debate about the appropriate balance between security and privacy if it were not for the Snowden disclosures.
President Obama should pardon Snowden so he can return to this country and participate in the debate.
17
Yes I am on the side of Mr Snodem
Exactly! To me Snowden is a Hero====he let us know of our governments hidden agenda!!
All of these resources, and they can't stop the Russians or Chinese from hacking our major corporations or government entities? NSA is hunting ghosts while they should have been spending all of this surveillance money on upgrading security on government networks.
13
Today's new headline: "Federal Breach With Links to China Exposes Staff Data"
Of course, discovering the origin of the hack required looking at Internet traffic through cables and routers "on American soil."
I guess we should not go after those hacks, let the Chinese access anything they want unhindered. After all, our privacy is at stake. Not.
Of course, discovering the origin of the hack required looking at Internet traffic through cables and routers "on American soil."
I guess we should not go after those hacks, let the Chinese access anything they want unhindered. After all, our privacy is at stake. Not.
6
It isn't only our privacy, but also our Liberty, which is at stake.
History has proven that government everywhere tends towards abuse of informations they collect. It would be absurd to imagine that our own government is any less prone to abuses.
History has proven that government everywhere tends towards abuse of informations they collect. It would be absurd to imagine that our own government is any less prone to abuses.
The only way to put some control on the NSA is to cut its budget by 50%
12
Amid all this righteous indignation, I'm not seeing much reference to the many cyberattacks on US targets from sources abroad. Does the administration really need to put out a press release that says "we're going to give as we get"? I'd have thought it was a given.
6
Are we spending any money toward developing firewalls against such hacking? Recent news regarding China, North Korea and Russia would suggest not. If I was looking for a job, I'd think twice about applying for a position in the federal government.
4
"Information about Americans sometimes gets swept up incidentally when foreigners are targeted, and prosecutors can use that information in criminal cases."
And how exactly does that comply with the Fourth Amendment? Or has the Administration decided that the Constitution is "obsolete," too?
And how exactly does that comply with the Fourth Amendment? Or has the Administration decided that the Constitution is "obsolete," too?
16
The Constitution is getting "obsolete," and it is getting more obsolete as time passes.
All too many in the present and previous administrations have already decided that the Constitution is obsolete. They constantly redefine the meanings of it's words to their own liking.
Hopefully those demonizing the NSA and President Obama in these comments are reading the other breaking NYT story: "Breach in a Federal Computer System Exposes Personnel Data." The irony would be hilarious, if the threat weren't so serious.
10
The irony is that the NSA was so inept that it could not secure its *own* data.
10
The attitude President Obama has demonstrated towards whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, has been my greatest source of disappointment with his administration. Indeed, from this totally inappropriate persecution of those who would expose the illegal activities of our intelligence agency, it is clear that president Obama has bought into the philosophy that believes our government is unaccountable to its citizens in matters of national security. I, on the other hand, believe that the president is completely accountable, in all matters, to the laws of this nation. His office does not now, nor should it EVER confer some super-immunity regarding his actions.
While he has spoken out against the acts of torture committed by members of the previous administration, he has clearly considered himself above the law in matteres of illegal surveillance and the execution of American citizens without due process. I find this to be no less contemptible than when Dick Cheney was directing such activities (through the puppet presidency of GWB).
America was founded on principles of openness and democracy. Every time I hear of an arm of our government using the events of 9/11 as an excuse to subvert our principles, I feel like we are disgracing the memory of those who lost their lives on that day. Each compromise of our most deeply held beliefs regarding freedom and liberty are like another great victory for terrorists everywhere. It's time to pardon Edward Snowden, a true patriot!
While he has spoken out against the acts of torture committed by members of the previous administration, he has clearly considered himself above the law in matteres of illegal surveillance and the execution of American citizens without due process. I find this to be no less contemptible than when Dick Cheney was directing such activities (through the puppet presidency of GWB).
America was founded on principles of openness and democracy. Every time I hear of an arm of our government using the events of 9/11 as an excuse to subvert our principles, I feel like we are disgracing the memory of those who lost their lives on that day. Each compromise of our most deeply held beliefs regarding freedom and liberty are like another great victory for terrorists everywhere. It's time to pardon Edward Snowden, a true patriot!
31
Indrid Cold,
Spoken as only a true patriot would say it.
Pity so many have yet to understand how serious this relentless abrogation of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights has become.
Orwell never envisioned that it would get this far.
Spoken as only a true patriot would say it.
Pity so many have yet to understand how serious this relentless abrogation of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights has become.
Orwell never envisioned that it would get this far.
6
i would be disappointed if President Obama didn't try to protect america from foreign cyber attacks. the fourth ammendment does not apply to foreigners.
4
It applies to Americans, though, all of whom are now subject to search and seizure by NSA and the many other government security agencies.
4
Nice to know the NSA is spying on my daily reads of The Sydney Morning Hearld and The Melbourne Age. Maybe they can help me with this week's picks in both National Rugby League and Australian Rules Football Fantasy leagues.
Nice to know that our President is so paranoid that he continued to stomp on teh US Constitution. No better than the two presidents before him.
Of course they are looking for who is coming in, but that doe snot mean they are not looking at what is going out. So, adding phone calls, and text messaging, they are now spying on every internet packet.
The cost to store this data for later trawling would certainly hit taxpayers ire. But, with so much data, it would take weeks to go through it all; with more coming in. They will not know an attack is going on until it has already happened.
Another charade to protect the so called "homeland". Goerge Orwell must be grinning from his grave. The US is continuing down the path to become a real INGSOC.
Nice to know that our President is so paranoid that he continued to stomp on teh US Constitution. No better than the two presidents before him.
Of course they are looking for who is coming in, but that doe snot mean they are not looking at what is going out. So, adding phone calls, and text messaging, they are now spying on every internet packet.
The cost to store this data for later trawling would certainly hit taxpayers ire. But, with so much data, it would take weeks to go through it all; with more coming in. They will not know an attack is going on until it has already happened.
Another charade to protect the so called "homeland". Goerge Orwell must be grinning from his grave. The US is continuing down the path to become a real INGSOC.
20
The way I see it is that Americans have a choice. During these times of 24/7 threats from terrorists, the American public needs to accept that surveillance might be one way to help to protect us. Or, if the American public values privacy more than the attempts to protect them from terrorists, they can choose minimal surveillance. Unfortunately, they can't have it both ways. So just which does the majority want?
4
I am, albeit unenthusiastically, in favor of the surveillance.
3
I believe that there is a balance between legitimate state goals and privacy. Indeed, that has been the delicate balancing act America has done since the inception of the Constitution. It is not a question of one or the other. This President, whom I generally have supported, has gone out of his way to damage over two hundred years of Constitutional law. His record on the Fourth Amendment will be a huge blot on his legacy. Thank you, Mr. Snowden, for your continued service to the American people and their Constitution.
12
I agree with you Joan. We give away so much of our personal information through social media, if it can be used to protect this country, I'm all for it.
3
My biggest fear of hackers is the federal government.
19
I'm a private person and I like to keep my Life away from "prying eyes" but taking part of the Digital Society, I give a lot of access to who I am to a lot of interested parties like Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), email ( can not explain why I get all this email trying to sell me things, when I click "do not want to solicited"), Online billing, Online Dating (not anymore), etc. So I really don't know how I can really complain about the govt. tracking my mail and know where it is going, and being able to see it's contents - when it appears every online corporation can to, even Political Parties.
These days, I hear about either Russian or Chinese hackers stealing corporate data or personal information or credit card info, because the entities we entrusted that data to - IRS, Target, etc., were not good enough to secure it properly and you can't really complain about it, because you freely gave that information away for convenience sake or to get a free "gift".
I heard a while back ago that US Post Office services will soon go away because everyone is using email, Instant Messaging, Facebook, etc., to talk to people - but if I remember correctly, no one (either a hacker or Government entity) was ever able to hack a closed envelope EVER - maybe we should keep keep the Post Office around for a while and send our private stuff by mail, than digital express, until we can figure how to keep our digital Life private, like how a paper envelope and stamp does it.
These days, I hear about either Russian or Chinese hackers stealing corporate data or personal information or credit card info, because the entities we entrusted that data to - IRS, Target, etc., were not good enough to secure it properly and you can't really complain about it, because you freely gave that information away for convenience sake or to get a free "gift".
I heard a while back ago that US Post Office services will soon go away because everyone is using email, Instant Messaging, Facebook, etc., to talk to people - but if I remember correctly, no one (either a hacker or Government entity) was ever able to hack a closed envelope EVER - maybe we should keep keep the Post Office around for a while and send our private stuff by mail, than digital express, until we can figure how to keep our digital Life private, like how a paper envelope and stamp does it.
6
Such a misconception about the USPS. Do some research about what they can and do do.
The USPS is photographing the fronts of envelopes and recording who sent you that letter.
"It can be hard to know for sure who is behind a particular intrusion — a foreign government or a criminal gang —"
To the person or corporation hacked and whose life or business is left in ruins DOES IT MATTER? Stop these people/governments/gangs from doing this to innocent people.
To the person or corporation hacked and whose life or business is left in ruins DOES IT MATTER? Stop these people/governments/gangs from doing this to innocent people.
3
I hope the companies which are benefiting from this are paying for it. I am tired of us subsidizing mega corporations with taxpayer dollars. Some of these hacking protection costs are just part of the cost of doing business. The same with the security we provide for companies doing business in the Middle East. I can't imagine all 3000 people working at our over-sized embassy in Iraq are working for me or most taxpayers. Why do we need 3000 people in country we supposedly stopped fighting in? What are they doing and who are the working for?
7
The American military dictatorship has always been trying to catch revolutionaries to quell any potential uprisings. Now their efforts are ramped up extremely extensively. Just think about all the various aspects of the national dragnet.
The Democrats are the most pronounced purveyors of unconstitutional efforts to control the public through all this military surveillance and the decades of reinforcing the Police "Forces".
Take my word for it, the military government is trying to stop a revolution and are unwittingly and infinitely stupidly starting one. Now they deserve it.
The Democrats are the most pronounced purveyors of unconstitutional efforts to control the public through all this military surveillance and the decades of reinforcing the Police "Forces".
Take my word for it, the military government is trying to stop a revolution and are unwittingly and infinitely stupidly starting one. Now they deserve it.
6
There are 515 progressives in congress and only 20 conservatives. The problem is far larger than you think it is.
The progressives control the various bureaucracies, our public education system, the news, most of our corporations, and our state governments just to mention a few.
The progressives control the various bureaucracies, our public education system, the news, most of our corporations, and our state governments just to mention a few.
3
Well, there are some things we can't argue with. Cyber attacks can come from anywhere, at any time, and at high speeds. So definitely, something different from the normal process of getting warrants has to be done in order to expedite the sleuthing that is necessary to get to the bottom of these types of problems and hopefully catch the criminal(s). I am okay with pre-authorizing certain types of network snooping in order to accomplish these goals. But the data so collected should be cryptographically sealed, and accessible only to those who need to see it for investigative purposes. Actions against individuals - and I include things like planting malicious software or trojans on someone's computer - should not be undertaken without a warrant granted by an appropriate court. It is imperative that rights and freedoms of individuals not be affected by any of these undercover activities.
5
Citizens deserve the respect of privacy.
A natural birth right is privacy.
Trust has been breached.
How will trust ever be repaired?
Every utterance is up for discernment.
A natural birth right is privacy.
Trust has been breached.
How will trust ever be repaired?
Every utterance is up for discernment.
6
In the world we live in now, I want our government to do whatever it takes to keep us safe and our enemies on the run. Unless you're a traitor, terrorist or perv, why should you worry? Unfortunately that's what it's all come down to. Us against them.
7
Lord help us--that attitude will be the end of liberty as we know it.
You make the amazing assumption that the federal government can do anything effectively, like protect us when terrorists. In fact, they merely create more terrorists by killing innocent civilians in far away lands.
You make the amazing assumption that the federal government can do anything effectively, like protect us when terrorists. In fact, they merely create more terrorists by killing innocent civilians in far away lands.
18
Our government is capable of making us completely and totally safe from terrorism. The cost is freedom. Terrorists hate freedom.
4
Once again, the old 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about' argument. If I could insert a happy smiley face I would.
The problem becomes, very soon and already we have a wonderful example in the dossiers that good ol' J. Edgar kept, is when you are doing things within the law and someone accumulates info to embarrass you or potentially interfer with a job or family situation.
Having extensive amounts of data also leaves people open to someone else's interpretation of what is right or wrong. That's the whole reason the court system is in place today. If it were clear that someone is wrong, we'd never need the elaborate protections and appeals that the legal system works under every day.
Please let the old phrase "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to worry about" die a quick death.
The problem becomes, very soon and already we have a wonderful example in the dossiers that good ol' J. Edgar kept, is when you are doing things within the law and someone accumulates info to embarrass you or potentially interfer with a job or family situation.
Having extensive amounts of data also leaves people open to someone else's interpretation of what is right or wrong. That's the whole reason the court system is in place today. If it were clear that someone is wrong, we'd never need the elaborate protections and appeals that the legal system works under every day.
Please let the old phrase "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to worry about" die a quick death.
5
I hope all these naysayers about our Presidents' decision to expand our search for hackers can hide all of their questionable international internet searches. Tough luck guys! I get tired of all of the snide comments from those who criticize our government.
5
The government can't "protect" us, even if it wanted to.
What they do is use the specter of various bogeymen to terrorize us all into submission, allowing them to pick through our information streams at will.
Any information you give to the government, by whatever means, will ultimately be used against you.
The biggest enemy of America, is the U.S. government..
-Ken
LaserGuidedLoogie
What they do is use the specter of various bogeymen to terrorize us all into submission, allowing them to pick through our information streams at will.
Any information you give to the government, by whatever means, will ultimately be used against you.
The biggest enemy of America, is the U.S. government..
-Ken
LaserGuidedLoogie
15
This Administration and its government is out of control. What else is coming that we did not know about?
17
I'm thinking maybe the Obama administration wasn't "the most transparent ever."
36
Right the BushBama administration ran one unending false narrative, that I am so ready to be over yesterday.
9
A previous administration's wrongs do not entitle the current one to continue to do the same.
Time for the this and the next administration to get back in line.
Time for the this and the next administration to get back in line.
No one is fooled by the recent Freedom Act restrictions on spying by the NSA and the morally corrupt administration of Pres. Obama. If this government wants to spy on you they will - courtesy of spineless Democratic politicians and hawkish Republicans, who are more interested in their lobbyist relationships than their obligation to the Constitution and the citizens they represent.
4
Do look up the top five donars for each Representative and Senator. You'll see the two parties have a lot in common.
There no longer is a real Republican or Democratic Party. They are really just The Party now. That is why they work together these days. Everything they actually turn into a law now is bad for us and good for government power, be it through the banks or the corporations.
Look at it this way: If, in the past, you have voted for the lesser of two evils or the devil you know, you still voted for an evil devil. Stop doing that. Find a new color. Red and Blue don't care about you.
There no longer is a real Republican or Democratic Party. They are really just The Party now. That is why they work together these days. Everything they actually turn into a law now is bad for us and good for government power, be it through the banks or the corporations.
Look at it this way: If, in the past, you have voted for the lesser of two evils or the devil you know, you still voted for an evil devil. Stop doing that. Find a new color. Red and Blue don't care about you.
It seems to me that looking for signs of hacking is a legitimate and important activity that has the potential to benefit us all.
The question is what happens to other information that is incidentally gathered in this process. Is it kept by NSA and other government agencies for possible use in unconstitutional surveillance? Or is it discarded in some form of *electronic trash* that is comparable to shredding paper??
I realize that once something goes out on the internet, it never really disappears anyhow. The issue is whether the NSA even tries to make this information in accessible or whether it attempts to exploit this collateral information in ways that invade our constitutionally protected right to privacy.
The question is what happens to other information that is incidentally gathered in this process. Is it kept by NSA and other government agencies for possible use in unconstitutional surveillance? Or is it discarded in some form of *electronic trash* that is comparable to shredding paper??
I realize that once something goes out on the internet, it never really disappears anyhow. The issue is whether the NSA even tries to make this information in accessible or whether it attempts to exploit this collateral information in ways that invade our constitutionally protected right to privacy.
1
Yes, the data is kept, and it's our own data. It would be nice if the NSA grabbed the data from the hackers and didn't RETURN IT to them after they copied it. THAT would be protecting us a lot more than their current process.
1
If you are asking if they look at your *bleep* pictures, yes, yes they do. It is a good thing you are nobody important as it could be blackmail material.
Wait, what?
MORE "secret" justice department memos saying highly questionable government activities are legal? What's the point of a secret legal opinion? It's like "The Doomsday Machine." If you keep it secret its whole reason for existing becomes moot.
Secret memos, a secret FISA court that issues secret rulings. And Bamaand Diane Feinstein defending them at every step Wow!
Add that to an NSA that didn't even see ISIS being created and a whole host of international and national (Boston Marathon?) terrorism that went undetected and what you have is Obama handing nbridled power to an incompetent government agency.
Like others, I voted for Obama twice believing he would deliver the open and honest and accountable government he kept promising.
Instead, he cloaks his decisions in secrecy, prosecutes wars that were lost a decade ago, continues to violate the Constitution at every available opportunity, and has moved my country by huge leaps toward becoming a police state.
That will be his legacy: He will rank among the most mediocre presidents in our history. Very sad.
MORE "secret" justice department memos saying highly questionable government activities are legal? What's the point of a secret legal opinion? It's like "The Doomsday Machine." If you keep it secret its whole reason for existing becomes moot.
Secret memos, a secret FISA court that issues secret rulings. And Bamaand Diane Feinstein defending them at every step Wow!
Add that to an NSA that didn't even see ISIS being created and a whole host of international and national (Boston Marathon?) terrorism that went undetected and what you have is Obama handing nbridled power to an incompetent government agency.
Like others, I voted for Obama twice believing he would deliver the open and honest and accountable government he kept promising.
Instead, he cloaks his decisions in secrecy, prosecutes wars that were lost a decade ago, continues to violate the Constitution at every available opportunity, and has moved my country by huge leaps toward becoming a police state.
That will be his legacy: He will rank among the most mediocre presidents in our history. Very sad.
16
A secret FISA "court" with no adversary process that issues secret rulings, is not a court at all.
It is an administrative bureau that rubber stamps requests to violate the 4th amendment.
Its cross reference in the "USA Freedom (ha ha) Act" that requires a "warrants" from the secret FISA court to search and seize private communications and records of US citizens is one of the most dishonest ploys in legislative drafting ever.
Those promoting the USA Freedom Act as a solution and pointing to the warrant requirement from a court to be issued purposefully misled the public to belief that proper legal process was being followed, when in fact the 4th Amendment would be violated each time the so-called FISA "Court" (not) rubber stamps approval on another "warrant."
Less than one fourth of one percent of all "warrant" requests to the FISA "Court" have ever been denied.
It is an administrative bureau that rubber stamps requests to violate the 4th amendment.
Its cross reference in the "USA Freedom (ha ha) Act" that requires a "warrants" from the secret FISA court to search and seize private communications and records of US citizens is one of the most dishonest ploys in legislative drafting ever.
Those promoting the USA Freedom Act as a solution and pointing to the warrant requirement from a court to be issued purposefully misled the public to belief that proper legal process was being followed, when in fact the 4th Amendment would be violated each time the so-called FISA "Court" (not) rubber stamps approval on another "warrant."
Less than one fourth of one percent of all "warrant" requests to the FISA "Court" have ever been denied.
8
So he moved your country by huge leaps toward becoming a police state and you think he's mediocre?
FYI - this is already a police state. That is why you cannot own property. You have to rent it via taxes to the government. Everything else is academnic in time.
FYI - this is already a police state. That is why you cannot own property. You have to rent it via taxes to the government. Everything else is academnic in time.
Doesn't the photo accompanying this article showing us the N.S.A.'s Bluffdale, Utah center of criminal activity against the American people and God knows who else have a plot of land unnaturally blacked out mid-photo left? What's the origin of the photo?
4
@Ananda [for some reason my replies have not been showing up under the original comments]: What you're referring to appears to be what is normally called "a grassy field." Nothing is blacked out. It might have a different color from the surrounding fields because it has a different type of grass, is irrigated, etc. A big version of the photo is here: http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/06/05/us/05cyber-web/05cyber-web-sup...
1
It's not black. It's blue.
I am sorry to say this. The Constitution is very important, no two ways about that. But it is a Document 200 years old when life was simple. Of course, there were problems of then to. Nothing close to our current problems, though. But the Constitution is not a document written in lime and brimstone. Our smart forefathers gave us a template whereby amendments could be made according to the times. The N.S.A and the Patriot Act knee-jerk reactions to terrorism. It's time has run out and should die a natural death. However, one cannot forget the existence of Al Qaeda, the ISIS and all those murderous groups out there. And they are recruiting our disenfranchised youth without setting foot on our soil. The real and present danger would be from within. Let the Patriot Act become obsolete since all Americans' data has been proved useless. But monitoring internet intrusions from foreign governments and terror groups to our citizens is an imperative. These recruits have to identified. Streamlining and narrowing the scope of the N.S.A.'s activities will almost prevent intrusion of the privacy of American Citizens. But international Internet should be closely watched. Letting our guard down at this juncture, knowing what we know about these murderous thugs and their actions, would be a fool's errand - nay, siucidal.
1
By your logic two hundred years is no different from twenty years or twenty days. Nothing that 'was' can apply to anything that is 'now'. That's a slippery slope. But you hit on an important point which is the ability to amend the Constitution as prescribed by our founders. That IS the issue. And if, as a nation, we find this issue so important and are willing to give up our freedom for physical and fiscal safety then we should do so via a duly amended Constitution. This would be political suicide of course so our leaders, incapable of garnering any sort of national consensus, attempt to address these issues under the table under the rubric of pragmatism. Regardless of how old the Constitution is, that sort of pragmatism is inimical to freedom.
2
Both Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL/IS were birthed by the CIA. The decades of violating our constitution have lead to this - an unaccountable government that does and it pleases and creates boogeymen to scare the poor defenseless children into their ever loving arms.
Read about the cases where the FBI has stopped a terrorist or plot. Every one of them involves and FBI informant egging on the patsy until they finally agree to do something. Almost all these cases are examples of setting up a dupe to get an easy bust and make headlines. It is all propaganda, save for the poor suckers tricked into life in prison.
Read about the cases where the FBI has stopped a terrorist or plot. Every one of them involves and FBI informant egging on the patsy until they finally agree to do something. Almost all these cases are examples of setting up a dupe to get an easy bust and make headlines. It is all propaganda, save for the poor suckers tricked into life in prison.
"...did not apply to the warrantless wiretapping program" - This one sentence is all you need to see to know what they are doing is in violation of the Constitution.
14
I find it remarkable that there is so much public outcry about the activities of the NSA and related government organizations, and so little about the much more pervasive and intrusive collection of data by commercial entities (cf, the next news article "Consumers Dislike Data-Mining but Feel Helpless to Stop It..."
All of the information that has yet come to light has indicated that the government activities have been directed toward legitimate ends--prevention of terrorism and, now, hacking and computer crime. Admittedly, there are areas of inadequate control and data protection, and there is a history of some govenment misuse of secret information (e.g., J. Edgar Hoover and the McCarthy era). But so far these dangers are hypothetical rather than demonstrated.
On the other hand, commercial data mining has no public benefit and is expressly for the purpose of selling data at a profit. And control of the data is nil.
Why are we not seeing an outcry for protection against commercial spying commensurate with that about the NSA?
All of the information that has yet come to light has indicated that the government activities have been directed toward legitimate ends--prevention of terrorism and, now, hacking and computer crime. Admittedly, there are areas of inadequate control and data protection, and there is a history of some govenment misuse of secret information (e.g., J. Edgar Hoover and the McCarthy era). But so far these dangers are hypothetical rather than demonstrated.
On the other hand, commercial data mining has no public benefit and is expressly for the purpose of selling data at a profit. And control of the data is nil.
Why are we not seeing an outcry for protection against commercial spying commensurate with that about the NSA?
18
@Joe K: "... so little about the much more pervasive and intrusive collection of data by commercial entities ..."
"commercial entities" cannot arrest and imprison people.
"And control of the [commercial] data is nil."
Companies usually have privacy policies. They may also have options to opt-out of data collection.
"commercial entities" cannot arrest and imprison people.
"And control of the [commercial] data is nil."
Companies usually have privacy policies. They may also have options to opt-out of data collection.
1
It seems that many commenters so far missed one of the key reasons this should be controversial. It was mentioned in the article but not fully explained. As a computer security expert, I'll expand on it.
One of the most common types of malware in recent years is randsomware: software that infects computers, steals the information on them, and then ransoms it back to the owner. Another major type of cyber attacks are those that seek to gain valuable information, whether that be trade secrets or military secrets or even blackmail material. Both foreign governments and cybercriminals operate this type of attack.
What these types of attacks have in common, and therefore why this NSA policy should be concerning, is that they send the data of US residents back to central servers controlled by the hackers. It is this data that the NSA is gathering.
With regards to the data collected, due to the motivations of the hackers operating these types of attacks, the following are true: they get as much data as possible, and they are not particularly concerned with the confidentiality of the information while it is being sent back to their servers (it's not their data after all). Combined, this means that an infected computer will usually send back nearly the entire contents of its hard drive, and it will often send the data unencrypted.
So it is not the hacker's information that the NSA is monitoring and collecting, it's the entire contents of US residents' computers.
One of the most common types of malware in recent years is randsomware: software that infects computers, steals the information on them, and then ransoms it back to the owner. Another major type of cyber attacks are those that seek to gain valuable information, whether that be trade secrets or military secrets or even blackmail material. Both foreign governments and cybercriminals operate this type of attack.
What these types of attacks have in common, and therefore why this NSA policy should be concerning, is that they send the data of US residents back to central servers controlled by the hackers. It is this data that the NSA is gathering.
With regards to the data collected, due to the motivations of the hackers operating these types of attacks, the following are true: they get as much data as possible, and they are not particularly concerned with the confidentiality of the information while it is being sent back to their servers (it's not their data after all). Combined, this means that an infected computer will usually send back nearly the entire contents of its hard drive, and it will often send the data unencrypted.
So it is not the hacker's information that the NSA is monitoring and collecting, it's the entire contents of US residents' computers.
32
In exchange for protection from ransomware, I'd gladly share some of my personal data with the NSA. Believe it or not, I actually trust the NSA not to do me harm than I trust black hat hackers.
8
@Paul James: "... they are not particularly concerned with the confidentiality of the information while it is being sent back to their servers (it's not their data after all)."
Unencrypted data can be corrupted by a man-in-the-middle attack, so stolen data could be infected with malware by the NSA or competing hackers.
Unencrypted data can be corrupted by a man-in-the-middle attack, so stolen data could be infected with malware by the NSA or competing hackers.
1
It seems quite odd to be concerned that US person data being sent to foreign crackers for presumably criminal use might be copied by the NSA, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, misused such data anytime in the last 25 or 30 years.
Nothing in the documents this article references (as opposed to the extremely slanted article) comes anywhere close to suggesting that the NSA or any other government agency has done, or is likely to do, anything inappropriate with the data.
Nothing in the documents this article references (as opposed to the extremely slanted article) comes anywhere close to suggesting that the NSA or any other government agency has done, or is likely to do, anything inappropriate with the data.
Once again, the Times parades its utter irresponsibility and contempt for any and all efforts to protect the national security of the United States, in league with a criminal defector. This sort of program to identify and defend against hacking by foreign agencies is exactly what most Americans expect the NSA to do. Only by writing such a story with deliberate suspicious insinuations by employing manipulative language can it be made to seem inappropriate.
9
Far too many crimes have been committed in the name of "national security."
Throughout this entire BushBama regime, our courts have been pummeled by administration attorney's witholding documents required to process cases under the excuse of "national security."
What a completely obvious joke.
Throughout this entire BushBama regime, our courts have been pummeled by administration attorney's witholding documents required to process cases under the excuse of "national security."
What a completely obvious joke.
3
Oh, and Snowden is not a criminal. He's not been convicted. I wonder if any jury of his peers would convict him. But he's a hero. He's sacrificed his life here for the truth. And he's in Russia only because we wouldn't let him leave.
5
Hogwash. There is no imperative that this nation protect us by 'any means possible'. That is the language of despotism and always has been. There are many things more precious than protection from terrorism and cyber attacks. Sadly, the last generation or two will wonder what they are.
2
Well, I, for one, feel much much freer now that this information has been disclosed. I had been feeling oppressed for some reason but the truth is that the arc of history is long but it bends away from the automatic collection of bulk telephone metadata by the NSA! Free at last! Free at Last! Thank G*d almighty, we are FREE AT LAST!
1
"In mid-2012, Justice Department lawyers wrote two secret memos permitting the spy agency to begin hunting on Internet cables, without a warrant and on American soil..."
That's sort of like a parent "authorizing" his/her child to go into a store and steal two candy bars. The parent, having no such authority, cannot pass that non-existent authority along to his child.
Get it?
That's sort of like a parent "authorizing" his/her child to go into a store and steal two candy bars. The parent, having no such authority, cannot pass that non-existent authority along to his child.
Get it?
6
This Justice Department seems to have lost its moral and legal compasses two decades ago. I'd send them all back to law school for Con Law.
1
The digital sifting of data is a fact of life.
If the NSA isn't doing it, Google is. And probably better.
So if you don't want to be "profiled," get off the internet.
The collection of unsifted data isn't really much of a threat - especially if you're not doing anything. Somebody looking for Isis bound jihadis isn't going to bother with a chemical engineer from Iowa city who is having a fling with the local bar maid.
As long as they can't use information against you that they collect from this process, so what? Google is doing it anyway. When you sign up for G-mail, you're giving them permission.
If the NSA isn't doing it, Google is. And probably better.
So if you don't want to be "profiled," get off the internet.
The collection of unsifted data isn't really much of a threat - especially if you're not doing anything. Somebody looking for Isis bound jihadis isn't going to bother with a chemical engineer from Iowa city who is having a fling with the local bar maid.
As long as they can't use information against you that they collect from this process, so what? Google is doing it anyway. When you sign up for G-mail, you're giving them permission.
9
If the Brooklyn Traveler does not dissent, does he assent to having his Constitutional rights thrown out the window? Will he enjoy being accused and tried without a trial by his peers? How abut being assumed innocent until proven guilty? That was a nice idea to protect the harmless from those who enjoy harming. Legal procedure has some very intelligent safeguards built into it for protecting our freedoms from tyrants with too much money and power. The light will out anyway, yes, but why bend over and be unequal when you're not?
2
Google started out as a DARPA project. Do the math.
How is protecting the nation from hackers a problem for US Citizens unless, of course, they are hackers? I'd like to see the NSA do more with metadata in the area of identifying drug smuggling/distribution rings that plague American cities. Are we really so afraid of the government that we won't allow it to protect us from foreign attacks on US soil? That is what drug smugglers and hackers engage in every day.
13
If the brave and caring government could only secure our borders from unlawful crossings then you could worry a lot less about drug smugglers in American cities.
Instead of that you would have them spy on all of us? Seems like you have something against Americans.
Instead of that you would have them spy on all of us? Seems like you have something against Americans.
Thank God we have the ever-vigilant NY Times to protect us from the evils of the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI. I feel soooo very much better knowing that our way of life is protected by that Great American Patriot, Edward Snowden.
I can just imagine the outrage the next time the Chinese or Russians take down the Times website... can't happen soon enough.
I can just imagine the outrage the next time the Chinese or Russians take down the Times website... can't happen soon enough.
3
So funny to have the right defending the Obama administration's continuation of the Bush administration's rank unconstitutionality.
1
So they are going to monitor hacking and pass on accidentally captured domestic data for prosecution. Watch the Chinese do what they do and target Americans. Brilliant.
When will Obama stop gutting the Constitution? When will he stop pursuing and expanding the very policies of his predecessors that he so decried to get elected? When?
23
@Smotri: "When will Obama stop gutting the Constitution?"
When was the last time you asked your members of Congress the same question?
When was the last time you asked your members of Congress the same question?
11
He'll probably get to the end and then stop. Regardless, he's probably just a puppet. This is a bankers world.
Most US Gov debt is held by banks.
Most corporate debt is held by banks.
Most personal debt is held by banks.
US Gov, corpoartes, and people are the most in debt they have ever been, each and combined.
Most US Gov debt is held by banks.
Most corporate debt is held by banks.
Most personal debt is held by banks.
US Gov, corpoartes, and people are the most in debt they have ever been, each and combined.
The Times' perspective on this topic is clear. Those of us who saw 911 close up respectfully disagree. The debate continues, but probably won't last long after the next mass casualty terrorist attack.
Editors' opinions are welcome on the editorial page, but what many readers distrust is the sense that the timing of news articles--including choreographed special bulletins--is manipulated to achieve specific results. Some of this is the work of Mr. Snowden--can't stand not being the center of attention--but newspapers don't have to facilitate it. Only one thing is more important than allowing a "source" to schedule each "drip-by-drip" news release: readers' ongoing confidence in the integrity of the newspaper itself.
Another thought based on other comments here: NSA is part of the Department of Defense. It responds to civilian authority--including the President ( e.g., guidance from the Department of Justice) and Congress. The Times itself --as recently as yesterday--says it has seen no pattern of "intentional abuse" in NSA the collection of metadata. Demonizing the NSA is a juvenile distraction that undermines legitimate efforts to counter real enemies seeking to do us harm.
Editors' opinions are welcome on the editorial page, but what many readers distrust is the sense that the timing of news articles--including choreographed special bulletins--is manipulated to achieve specific results. Some of this is the work of Mr. Snowden--can't stand not being the center of attention--but newspapers don't have to facilitate it. Only one thing is more important than allowing a "source" to schedule each "drip-by-drip" news release: readers' ongoing confidence in the integrity of the newspaper itself.
Another thought based on other comments here: NSA is part of the Department of Defense. It responds to civilian authority--including the President ( e.g., guidance from the Department of Justice) and Congress. The Times itself --as recently as yesterday--says it has seen no pattern of "intentional abuse" in NSA the collection of metadata. Demonizing the NSA is a juvenile distraction that undermines legitimate efforts to counter real enemies seeking to do us harm.
25
Did you ever play the Gestapo game when you were a kid? "What is your name?" Reply with your name. "You lie!" Again and again.
The most pernicious aspect of government sweeping up every iota of your digital presence is that entirely harmless "dots" can be connected by an official who is convinced they represent a "signal" that you are plotting something terrible. This is akin to wedding parties being blown up by drones, innocent people being tortured for months or years on the basis of mistaken identity, and is in addition to malicious action by government officials to "neutralize" their political enemies or criminalize dissent, both of which have ample precedents in political dirty tricks and infiltrating peaceful organizations exercising First Amendment rights.
Blinding oneself with upside and ignoring downside is a terrible way to make policy.
The most pernicious aspect of government sweeping up every iota of your digital presence is that entirely harmless "dots" can be connected by an official who is convinced they represent a "signal" that you are plotting something terrible. This is akin to wedding parties being blown up by drones, innocent people being tortured for months or years on the basis of mistaken identity, and is in addition to malicious action by government officials to "neutralize" their political enemies or criminalize dissent, both of which have ample precedents in political dirty tricks and infiltrating peaceful organizations exercising First Amendment rights.
Blinding oneself with upside and ignoring downside is a terrible way to make policy.
9
I have this odd feeling that this comments section's discussions are mostly between paid trollers from the "hacking" side (i.e., from foreign countries, etc.) and from the "hacked" side.
4
I'd reckon its mostly concerned citizens, and a few feds posting.
1
It's odd to me that you'd imagine that the New York Times would not have a very large number of readers who are just that, readers, and American citizens without any agenda but to make their voices heard in this open forum. There may well be conspiracies in this old world of ours, but you're really stretching to find one here.
Our government, as we so foolishly refer to it, never had anything to do with the "our", as "we the very foolish people", presumed.
The Founding Fathers had some honor, and designed a form of government that was the best that could be offered, giving the people real control over who would be in positions of leadership.
Slowly and with great subtlety, beginning about five decades ago, government began to understand how easy it was to manage and manipulate perception, how "we the very foolish people" could be made to see whatever kind of reality could be foisted upon us.
Soon after 9/11 our corporate owned and run government went into overdrive, pulling out all the stops, creating fear in a fearful populace, weakening our resolve, rushing into the void with all the answers we needed to make us feel secure again in our homes, restoring that superior sense of being that we Americans presumed we alone had a right to.
So here we are today, with our Constitution being repeatedly weakened, and our Bill of Rights being trampled on, all with complete impunity, with no fear of reprisal.
"We the very foolish people" are to blame.
The Founding Fathers had some honor, and designed a form of government that was the best that could be offered, giving the people real control over who would be in positions of leadership.
Slowly and with great subtlety, beginning about five decades ago, government began to understand how easy it was to manage and manipulate perception, how "we the very foolish people" could be made to see whatever kind of reality could be foisted upon us.
Soon after 9/11 our corporate owned and run government went into overdrive, pulling out all the stops, creating fear in a fearful populace, weakening our resolve, rushing into the void with all the answers we needed to make us feel secure again in our homes, restoring that superior sense of being that we Americans presumed we alone had a right to.
So here we are today, with our Constitution being repeatedly weakened, and our Bill of Rights being trampled on, all with complete impunity, with no fear of reprisal.
"We the very foolish people" are to blame.
10
And it is *bad* that our government is trying to stop cyberattacks?
This is exactly what the NSA's job is .
Btw, the information on *how* our government is trying to protect us was given by Snowden to Putin 2 years ago. There sure have been a lot of cyber attacks from Russia in the past 2 years, haven't there?
This is exactly what the NSA's job is .
Btw, the information on *how* our government is trying to protect us was given by Snowden to Putin 2 years ago. There sure have been a lot of cyber attacks from Russia in the past 2 years, haven't there?
13
I want our government to do this
I want them to attack other countries as they attack the USA.
Only criminals have something to hide.
I want them to attack other countries as they attack the USA.
Only criminals have something to hide.
2
I see this "foreign intelligence gathering" under Section 702 as not much more than a pretext to secretly conduct mass surveillance on Americans and to make an end run around the Fourth Amendment. Sure, there's a foreign intelligence aspect to this, but consider:
- The government is gathering Americans' private data without a warrant REGARDLESS of whether it targets Americans or foreigners or whether it can tell the difference.
- The government is intercepting the data at the closest points to the U.S., maximizing the amount of Americans' private data it collects.
- An NSA lawyer "suggested" segregating American hacking victim's data from its general repository searchable by the FBI, indicating that the government KNEW it was scooping of large amounts of American's private data, yet it continued to put the data in its general repository anyway.
- It is no secret that the government has been collecting foreign intelligence data, so the only reason for secrecy is to keep it secret that the government is collecting Americans' private data without a warrant.
- The government has an AWFUL track record in data privacy and, since the Snowden disclosures, as ZERO trust of the American people.
- The government is gathering Americans' private data without a warrant REGARDLESS of whether it targets Americans or foreigners or whether it can tell the difference.
- The government is intercepting the data at the closest points to the U.S., maximizing the amount of Americans' private data it collects.
- An NSA lawyer "suggested" segregating American hacking victim's data from its general repository searchable by the FBI, indicating that the government KNEW it was scooping of large amounts of American's private data, yet it continued to put the data in its general repository anyway.
- It is no secret that the government has been collecting foreign intelligence data, so the only reason for secrecy is to keep it secret that the government is collecting Americans' private data without a warrant.
- The government has an AWFUL track record in data privacy and, since the Snowden disclosures, as ZERO trust of the American people.
13
This sort of thing confounds those who see Mr. Obama as only evil and a disaster for the country. This cybersecurity effort is what I always thought that we should be doing in the first place, and Mr. O is doing it.
Now if we could get the 3700 most dangerous criminal aliens - murderers, rapists, violet felons - picked up instead of just ordered to be out loose on White House orders, that would be ten times better.
Now if we could get the 3700 most dangerous criminal aliens - murderers, rapists, violet felons - picked up instead of just ordered to be out loose on White House orders, that would be ten times better.
3
Using the NSA's logic that cybersecurity concerns involve such a rapid progression of grave threats that public debate and policy review about clandestine surveillance is no longer feasible, we need to immediately stop claiming America is a constitutional democracy.
9
Setting aside the permeability of the official story, 9/11 has been used as the excuse to pass every piece of Orwellian legislation since 2001. And now we are reaping what we've sown. Unsupervised employees working for unregulated agencies with immense access to our personal information.
11
Productive work for NSA, I personally endorse this. I have problems taking the vocal "privacy advocates" very seriously.
What is so "private" if you are not involved in something criminal? Do you really think your bank account or credit card are "secret"? Even medical records are all now being put on computers - do you think they are safe from hackers? The IRS gets hacked, the DoD gets hacked and your doctors office is probably not as secure as either of those was.
If American citizens were really concerned with privacy please explain Facebook.
Every million dollar hacker attack costs you serious $ as the targeted corporation ups their prices to support losses, repairs, insurance, and more sophisticated computers & software. Even the companies not attacked spend lots of money - they charge you - to add a another layer of security.
Every industrial secret stolen cost us jobs and money wasted on R & D that someone else gets for the price of a hacker.
I've got two programs on my computer to protect from viruses and malware, they were not free and I still have to be very careful. There are now dozens of companies selling services - that you pay for - providing "cyber security" to firms.
Shutting down FAA radar, the national electrical grid, or taking control of a nuclear power plant may seem like high school pranks, but they can have some pretty serious consequences - especially if coordinated.
What is so "private" if you are not involved in something criminal? Do you really think your bank account or credit card are "secret"? Even medical records are all now being put on computers - do you think they are safe from hackers? The IRS gets hacked, the DoD gets hacked and your doctors office is probably not as secure as either of those was.
If American citizens were really concerned with privacy please explain Facebook.
Every million dollar hacker attack costs you serious $ as the targeted corporation ups their prices to support losses, repairs, insurance, and more sophisticated computers & software. Even the companies not attacked spend lots of money - they charge you - to add a another layer of security.
Every industrial secret stolen cost us jobs and money wasted on R & D that someone else gets for the price of a hacker.
I've got two programs on my computer to protect from viruses and malware, they were not free and I still have to be very careful. There are now dozens of companies selling services - that you pay for - providing "cyber security" to firms.
Shutting down FAA radar, the national electrical grid, or taking control of a nuclear power plant may seem like high school pranks, but they can have some pretty serious consequences - especially if coordinated.
10
There are so many falacies in that argument that it is almost impossible to find them all.
6
@Peter: "There are so many falacies in that argument that it is almost impossible to find them all."
You don't need "to find them all." Please find *one* and tell us what it is.
You don't need "to find them all." Please find *one* and tell us what it is.
2
Retired Military,
How do you rationalize the "nothing to hide, nothing to lose", argument, in light of the fact that we have the Bill of Rights, in particular the Fourth Amendment, which in accordance with the laws of our nation, clearly states -
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
And nowhere in that brilliant liberty enhancing legal mandate, does it suggest that a secret court may make secret law, and completely ignore this ammendment, nor does it suggest anywhere that a warrant may issue, absent probable cause, unsupported by Oath or affirmation, and not particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Show me how any law abiding American citizen can willfully act in direct violation of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and I will show a traitor.
I have no problem whatsoever with any of our security agencies, monitoring at will, all who clearly evidence criminal, even potential criminal behavior, but they may not on the order of some incompetent bureaucrats, break the laws of our land.
Such is criminal, regardless as to whether the President or any other citizen does it.
How do you rationalize the "nothing to hide, nothing to lose", argument, in light of the fact that we have the Bill of Rights, in particular the Fourth Amendment, which in accordance with the laws of our nation, clearly states -
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
And nowhere in that brilliant liberty enhancing legal mandate, does it suggest that a secret court may make secret law, and completely ignore this ammendment, nor does it suggest anywhere that a warrant may issue, absent probable cause, unsupported by Oath or affirmation, and not particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Show me how any law abiding American citizen can willfully act in direct violation of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and I will show a traitor.
I have no problem whatsoever with any of our security agencies, monitoring at will, all who clearly evidence criminal, even potential criminal behavior, but they may not on the order of some incompetent bureaucrats, break the laws of our land.
Such is criminal, regardless as to whether the President or any other citizen does it.
3
Remember that Iran's centrifuges were shut down or destroyed by a cyber-attack. Think about how dependent we are on electrical power, internet access, cell phones and so on. All of them are dependent on computers to control them. There may already be people out there who know how to use a cyber-attack to shut some of them down, and a lot more working on figuring it out.
So attempting to prevent attacks is clearly part of the NSA's job - that's why it's called the National Security Agency. It can't be done using specific warrants, because they don't know the source of an attack until they find it. It's also difficult or impossible to know, once an attack is identified, where it's really coming from. A computer with what appears to be a US address could just be a relay for something coming from elsewhere.
Having said that, the data must be restricted to use for national security purposes, and not shared with other government agencies. How you write that into law and enforce that law is the crux of the issue.
So attempting to prevent attacks is clearly part of the NSA's job - that's why it's called the National Security Agency. It can't be done using specific warrants, because they don't know the source of an attack until they find it. It's also difficult or impossible to know, once an attack is identified, where it's really coming from. A computer with what appears to be a US address could just be a relay for something coming from elsewhere.
Having said that, the data must be restricted to use for national security purposes, and not shared with other government agencies. How you write that into law and enforce that law is the crux of the issue.
6
Per the article, the NSA and FBI have been chasing after illicit hacking for about three years. During that time frame, the media has reported on spectacular hacks involving massive data theft from multiple private and some public institutions. In some cases, the intrusions lasted months before being noticed. Does that mean our computers are as ineffective as our Congress, bank supervision and border controls?
8
2 years ago this stolen material on which the Times story is based was given to Russia by Edward Snowden. I would think it's safe to assume that that set back our givernment's efforts to protect us.
Given that Russia the behind many of the major cyber attacks.
Given that Russia the behind many of the major cyber attacks.
2
Yeah, and did Obama "grant him (Putin) a little more latitude after the election"?
I have no problem with the NSA searching cyberspace for hackers, individuals, crime groups, or foreign governments. Sometimes it may be bests to keep some actions quiet so as not to alert those that are being sought.
12
To the people who think this is just the government doing what it's supposed to: keeping us safe. You probably don't trust the government unquestioningly in any other area except here you trust that they are doing exactly what they say. This naivete is astonishing to me.
The way the government has hidden these programs and lied about them before each successive Snowden document revealed a much larger scope than they admitted to does not inspire confidence.
Nor the way they have classified anti-war or Occupy protesters as "terrorists". Or the way whistle-blowers have been harassed and even jailed.
Nor the way they are trying to avoid any limitations or oversight.
Nor the way other agencies are using surveillance data for things other than terrorism (e.g. drug cases).
There could even be blackmail (for votes or other favors) and/or espionage on behalf of private corporations. It might not be the government that is doing it, but rogue operatives with access to the data. An astonishing number (hundreds of thousands, I believe we were told) of private contractor employees have access. Or a hacker could gain access. It's pretty clear that our government (and most, if not all companies) cannot truly secure data from hackers.
And remember that the NSA could produce evidence of not a single terrorist plot that has been foiled using the kind of surveillance Snowden revealed.
The way the government has hidden these programs and lied about them before each successive Snowden document revealed a much larger scope than they admitted to does not inspire confidence.
Nor the way they have classified anti-war or Occupy protesters as "terrorists". Or the way whistle-blowers have been harassed and even jailed.
Nor the way they are trying to avoid any limitations or oversight.
Nor the way other agencies are using surveillance data for things other than terrorism (e.g. drug cases).
There could even be blackmail (for votes or other favors) and/or espionage on behalf of private corporations. It might not be the government that is doing it, but rogue operatives with access to the data. An astonishing number (hundreds of thousands, I believe we were told) of private contractor employees have access. Or a hacker could gain access. It's pretty clear that our government (and most, if not all companies) cannot truly secure data from hackers.
And remember that the NSA could produce evidence of not a single terrorist plot that has been foiled using the kind of surveillance Snowden revealed.
8
Ok, find us a perfect government and all of us naive people will move there. Meanwhile, I believe, as countries around the world go, this one ranks pretty far up on the list of just OK ones.
4
And, it's usually the right wing saying "if you have nothing to hide (or haven't done or aren't doing anything criminal) what are you worried about?"
Not how I read the 4th amendment.
For what it's worth, though, the NSA wouldn't tell you what they've foiled anyway.
Not how I read the 4th amendment.
For what it's worth, though, the NSA wouldn't tell you what they've foiled anyway.
3
Life before Internet was simple. You needed protection by the government: Police officers would be posted outside your house to do just that.
Now all our information, business transactions are done online. If you need protection, you have to let the government in. (Antivirus sofwares and most sofwares we use to protect ourselves only work by monitoring our online lives).
We have to chose our "Poison", and I chose the "government poison", as long as we still have the right to vote. The most important issue is: what Government(Administration) would you trust?
Now all our information, business transactions are done online. If you need protection, you have to let the government in. (Antivirus sofwares and most sofwares we use to protect ourselves only work by monitoring our online lives).
We have to chose our "Poison", and I chose the "government poison", as long as we still have the right to vote. The most important issue is: what Government(Administration) would you trust?
4
The government failed to stop 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the Fort Hood killer. Other would-be terrorists like the underwear bomber were stopped by alert citizens, not by the police or other government agents. Meanwhile, the FBI spends its time and our tax dollars entrapping disgruntled young Muslims who have no capacity to commit an act of terror, supplying them with fake bombs, and then putting them away for life. That's when they aren't spying on peaceful protesters. And the NSA uses our tax dollars to spy on us. Let's get real--the enemy the government is after is us, and our civil liberties.
18
Not a rational argument. That's like saying I won't wear my seat belt because I have never been in an accident.
4
Actually, Elizabeth from Florida, it's like saying I won't wear this particular seatbelt because no such seatbelt in existence has ever saved anyone in any accident, ever. The NSA could not point to a single case where the intelligence from any of these programs. Not a single one.
Sure these incidents did occur BUT how many didn't occur because we had surveillance. If I have a beef about how the government operates it is that they don't tell us all the plots that have been foiled.
“Without public notice, the Obama administration has expanded the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international Internet traffic to search for evidence of cyberattacks, according to classified documents provided by Edward J. Snowden.”
Umm does anyone else see the problem with this? Either Snowden still has access to our secure networks from Russia or the tense & the phrasing is want for correction. This is the sort of linguistic “mistake” that lets people in all positions high and low get away with the intentional dissociation they use to lie.
One of the former standards of the Civil Service test was that the tested speak and use English grammar well to fight this sort of manipulation in their dealings with Citizens and those they did business with on behalf of the Citizenry..
I’m all for defensive use of our resources but lets be clear that what has been going on for 14 years in our country is not OK. Fishing for crime is not crime prevention nor crime fighting, it is in fact a crime.
Umm does anyone else see the problem with this? Either Snowden still has access to our secure networks from Russia or the tense & the phrasing is want for correction. This is the sort of linguistic “mistake” that lets people in all positions high and low get away with the intentional dissociation they use to lie.
One of the former standards of the Civil Service test was that the tested speak and use English grammar well to fight this sort of manipulation in their dealings with Citizens and those they did business with on behalf of the Citizenry..
I’m all for defensive use of our resources but lets be clear that what has been going on for 14 years in our country is not OK. Fishing for crime is not crime prevention nor crime fighting, it is in fact a crime.
5
Well, it will be a boon to new encryption techniques, likely financed not by legitimate industry but by drug cartels.
The Obama Administration should just assume that every secret decision it's taken to the point Snowden made off with that data, to broaden surveillance not just of Americans but of ANYONE, ANYWHERE, eventually will see light of day -- and it's not Snowden anymore who's revealing this stuff, it's Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, journalists unilaterally making decisions about what is appropriate behavior by a nation and what is not, based on their own ideological convictions.
The president should come clean about ALL these programs: this one he can defend as necessary to protect us from what we know to be immensely damaging hacking capabilities, often originating offshore. Come clean and eliminate Greenwald's power.
The Obama Administration should just assume that every secret decision it's taken to the point Snowden made off with that data, to broaden surveillance not just of Americans but of ANYONE, ANYWHERE, eventually will see light of day -- and it's not Snowden anymore who's revealing this stuff, it's Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, journalists unilaterally making decisions about what is appropriate behavior by a nation and what is not, based on their own ideological convictions.
The president should come clean about ALL these programs: this one he can defend as necessary to protect us from what we know to be immensely damaging hacking capabilities, often originating offshore. Come clean and eliminate Greenwald's power.
2
Also worth noting that Poitras, a co-conspirator of Snowden/Greenwald, is actively involved in reporting and writing these stories for the Times. As a Times subscriber and admirer of many decades, I find that outrageous.
2
cgk:
It's a very fine line here. There are some who would argue that regardless of Snowden's motives and even the criminality of his actions, the data, once in the hands of journalists, became fair game. But by choosing what to publish and what to hold back, including the timing of revelations, one clearly flogs an ideological worldview and agenda. To do this and not be elected to hold such power is offensive to many of us.
Who the heck are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras?
It's a very fine line here. There are some who would argue that regardless of Snowden's motives and even the criminality of his actions, the data, once in the hands of journalists, became fair game. But by choosing what to publish and what to hold back, including the timing of revelations, one clearly flogs an ideological worldview and agenda. To do this and not be elected to hold such power is offensive to many of us.
Who the heck are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras?
The NSA is an opaque agency with a track record of lying about what it is up to and its success in stopping crime. It has no real oversight--judicial or congressional--and is a rogue operation. It is the CIA of data spying.
It gives individuals with a perverted notion of justice and law enforcement too much power. Think Herbert Hoover on steroids.
Stopping terrorism, cyber-attacks and general criminal conduct sounds so appealing. "Just keeping us safe from attack." The problem, as always, is in the details--the secret details.
Trusting the NSA to follow the law is just plain ignorant.
It gives individuals with a perverted notion of justice and law enforcement too much power. Think Herbert Hoover on steroids.
Stopping terrorism, cyber-attacks and general criminal conduct sounds so appealing. "Just keeping us safe from attack." The problem, as always, is in the details--the secret details.
Trusting the NSA to follow the law is just plain ignorant.
33
I suppose we should just trust ISIS instead.
3
I believe ScottW means J Edgar and not Herbert.
2
I was warned about the NSA in the 1970's as a teenager at a time when most people had no idea they existed and government officials usually denied it did. It was the first time I hear of them, I believed they existed, I did not believe they were as unAmerican as they have turned out to be.
The NSA crowd reminds me of gun control advocates. They both say if you are not guilty of anything why should you care. And they both are targeting the folks that are not guilty of anything nor commit crimes in order to catch "the bad guys." Well the Constitution is pretty clear, the 4th amendment trumps all these "scare and spend" govt types and their think tank and govt contractor friends who enrich themselves for "homeland security." Collecting my phone records doesn't stop the Saudis or others supporting ISIS or whatever radical group is threatening the Middle East at the moment. I'd start with our "friends" over there first before we presume everyone is guilty..
10
I just wish that that the big facilities, like the one pictured, could be built in states that are actually net taxpayers to the federal government. This is welfare for Utah.
2
There is a movement on in Utah to prevent the NSA from being able to use local utilities which are necessary to run the data center.
"A bill in the Utah Legislature targets the cooperation Bluffdale and the state have given the NSA. HB150 sponsored by Marc Roberts, R-Santaquin, requires that state and local governments "refuse material support or assistance to any federal data collection and surveillance agency."
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2118801-155/nsa-utah-data-center-using-more?f...
"A bill in the Utah Legislature targets the cooperation Bluffdale and the state have given the NSA. HB150 sponsored by Marc Roberts, R-Santaquin, requires that state and local governments "refuse material support or assistance to any federal data collection and surveillance agency."
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2118801-155/nsa-utah-data-center-using-more?f...
2
It is, and has been, clear that the FISA court is just a rubber stamp for the Obama Administration. This all needs to be discussed and debated by Congress, as just was done with the failure to renew the Patriot Act, which President Obama had wanted to keep in force. The NSA should be restricted to protecting cyber-attacks on federal government property with the FBI handling criminal hacking attempts. Accessing and storing private data by the NSA once again violates the fourth amendment and should, as with private phone information (aka "metadata"), be prohibited. Edward Snowden has once again called Mr. Obama on the issue of transparency and hopefully Senators like Ron Wyden and Rand Paul will once again answer it. If we continually have to violate our Constitution due to excessive fear, what have we left worth defending.
5
The FISA Court is US supreme court chief justice John Roberts' handpicked court.
Cut the internet cables betwixt Europe and the USA, and also betwixt Asia and the USA. I don't do business with either. Let them use FAX or telephone for business.
Remind me who invented and paid for the development of the internet and made it work ?
Remind me who invented and paid for the development of the internet and made it work ?
2
And, what is the main purpose of the 21st century internet?
To sell advertising.
To sell advertising.
2
@CJC: "I don't do business with either [Europe or Asia]."
Where was your computer made?
Where was your computer made?
I know this is complex. For you President Bush supporters; you remember how you defended him on this topic. Like most things, this can be used for great things or bad. If they are helping us against hackers or terrorists then it's great. We want to defend our nation yet I know we don't want to give up Civil Liberties in the process. Since Congress has to approve; maybe there are checks & balances we can't know about. That still leaves door open for politicians to use it against each other for political reasons & opens doors for propaganda & conspiracy theories.
Do any of us really have something to hide in a bad way? I don't so I really don't like being spied on but I'm not doing anything wrong so I worry it is a waste of time spying on people like me when it could be used for the bad guys out there. How do they figure out fast who is bad or not?
I need more info to decide on this topic. Do they want to try to read my mind and control me like rat in lab or are they trying to defend me?
Do any of us really have something to hide in a bad way? I don't so I really don't like being spied on but I'm not doing anything wrong so I worry it is a waste of time spying on people like me when it could be used for the bad guys out there. How do they figure out fast who is bad or not?
I need more info to decide on this topic. Do they want to try to read my mind and control me like rat in lab or are they trying to defend me?
1
It is more useful for enemies to know this exists; fear is a better weapon than anything else (ask ISIS). The perception of defense is frequently as effective as the defense itself. Look at the TSA-from the outside, it appears to be a thorough, powerful defense and it has worked in that fashion. In practice, it fails every test. With similar logic, it is better for cyberattackers to know and believe this program is as effective as Snowden claims.
So then, what does that make of Snowden? It is still amazing that he is taken, solely on his word, as a leaker. How so? How is he living freely in Russia? How did his girlfriend get there? How did he evade capture so easily? Why does no one remember him from school? From work? If you look objectively at Snowden's releases, you could argue that they have worked more to the benefit of the NSA. Nothing changed, nothing stopped, but now the whole world (and would-be detractors) exist under a veil of alleged omnipotent surveillance. All because of the most bizarre, choreographed, almost bragging leaks by the most harmless leaker in history. So strange.
So then, what does that make of Snowden? It is still amazing that he is taken, solely on his word, as a leaker. How so? How is he living freely in Russia? How did his girlfriend get there? How did he evade capture so easily? Why does no one remember him from school? From work? If you look objectively at Snowden's releases, you could argue that they have worked more to the benefit of the NSA. Nothing changed, nothing stopped, but now the whole world (and would-be detractors) exist under a veil of alleged omnipotent surveillance. All because of the most bizarre, choreographed, almost bragging leaks by the most harmless leaker in history. So strange.
3
So NSA has been hacking the hackers, we kind of knew that. But the
questions what else it is doing and not telling us? The US has a monopoly
of computing technologies, from chips, networks to operating systems and software. So we have what amounts to the nuclear options in this arena,
and we have already have signs that this is happening. And that's why countries like Russia and China are really scared, as they are living in the similar period just after WWII, when US held the monopoly the nuclear weapon. So the up side is that we know what the other countries are doing,
we are the police or the world the whole world is now under our surveillance, and it is already Orwellian many times over. The downside
is the world will be buying less of US products, specially computing products,
as they are a security thread to other countries. Feel another cold war is brewing. And just the last one, it is American by design.
questions what else it is doing and not telling us? The US has a monopoly
of computing technologies, from chips, networks to operating systems and software. So we have what amounts to the nuclear options in this arena,
and we have already have signs that this is happening. And that's why countries like Russia and China are really scared, as they are living in the similar period just after WWII, when US held the monopoly the nuclear weapon. So the up side is that we know what the other countries are doing,
we are the police or the world the whole world is now under our surveillance, and it is already Orwellian many times over. The downside
is the world will be buying less of US products, specially computing products,
as they are a security thread to other countries. Feel another cold war is brewing. And just the last one, it is American by design.
Take away domestic phones taps (supposedly) and increase our website surveillance. Blame Obama, but who knows what who is really responsible. Ain't about Snowden, we already knew this was happening...so why not shut up and do what you're going to do Big Bro, don't patronize us with explanations and pseudo-reports.
1
Do any of us in America know of the history surrounding a place called, "Bletchley Park"? [Think of, "The Imitation Game", a recent movie nominated for several Academy Awards.] During the Second World War, Bletchley was the British equivalent of our NSA in America today.
Some say now that the efforts of the unsung heros at Bletchley turned the tide in our favor in those desperate days. "Now", refers to the fact that their activities were unknown to the public, both during the war and for almost fifty years after.
Some activities are best kept secret.
The activities of our own unsung heros at the NSA ought also to be kept secret. Lives, possibly millions, depend on what they do. Let the elected leaders of our country decide what ought to be made public and what needs to be kept under wraps. I'm guessing that the families of the victims of the 911 terrorist attacks as well as the President agree with me on this point.
"Whistle blowers" like Edward Snowden are more than just common criminals. They're traitors. And in my opinion, individuals who publish documents from Snowden's trove can only be called, "well meaning fools". I'm guessing that the President agrees with me here also, at least in part.
Let's wise up about what's happening in the world today. We and our loyal friends and allies need all the security we can get. Lets quit biting the hands of those that protect us from our hidden enemies.
Some say now that the efforts of the unsung heros at Bletchley turned the tide in our favor in those desperate days. "Now", refers to the fact that their activities were unknown to the public, both during the war and for almost fifty years after.
Some activities are best kept secret.
The activities of our own unsung heros at the NSA ought also to be kept secret. Lives, possibly millions, depend on what they do. Let the elected leaders of our country decide what ought to be made public and what needs to be kept under wraps. I'm guessing that the families of the victims of the 911 terrorist attacks as well as the President agree with me on this point.
"Whistle blowers" like Edward Snowden are more than just common criminals. They're traitors. And in my opinion, individuals who publish documents from Snowden's trove can only be called, "well meaning fools". I'm guessing that the President agrees with me here also, at least in part.
Let's wise up about what's happening in the world today. We and our loyal friends and allies need all the security we can get. Lets quit biting the hands of those that protect us from our hidden enemies.
3
@Phillip Promet: "Some say now that the efforts of the unsung heros at Bletchley turned the tide in our favor in those desperate days."
There were also troops in combat with two highly capable nation-states[1], and domestic rationing, so your analogy is weak.
[1] Specifically, Germany and Japan.
There were also troops in combat with two highly capable nation-states[1], and domestic rationing, so your analogy is weak.
[1] Specifically, Germany and Japan.
Thanks, Steve:
You're right. But I only have 1500 characters to comment with--can't give the whole history of WWII.
... Intelligence matters, Steve. It helps armies and navies win battles. Then, now? and in the future...
Concerning Bletchley? Then Prime Minister Winston Churchill said [privately to those of his top aids who knew of it] something to the effect that, "... They saved more lives than anyone will ever know..." And he meant it.
Oh, and by the way. Our own OSS [now the CIA] didn't do a bad job either, during those dark days. And a lot of what they obtained for our purposes also came from Bletchley.
You're right. But I only have 1500 characters to comment with--can't give the whole history of WWII.
... Intelligence matters, Steve. It helps armies and navies win battles. Then, now? and in the future...
Concerning Bletchley? Then Prime Minister Winston Churchill said [privately to those of his top aids who knew of it] something to the effect that, "... They saved more lives than anyone will ever know..." And he meant it.
Oh, and by the way. Our own OSS [now the CIA] didn't do a bad job either, during those dark days. And a lot of what they obtained for our purposes also came from Bletchley.
Let's think beyond gathering for illegal threats private and government. While trolling for intel, just suppose, useful legitimate and legal information is gathered that can be used directly by the US government, say, in negotiations with entities foreign or domestic. And the possibility exist that legitimate information that can help a US commercial enterprise may be leaked to the benefit of an US entity.
3
I'm certain that the "too big to prosecute" New York banks with their money laundering chatter on behalf of the drug cartels is in that data. Nothing to see here, citizens, move along. War on drugs? What a charade, that has tens of thousands of small time people locked up.
3
It is right to jealously guard our American right to personal privacy. However, the world of cyberwarfare has rendered traditional ideas and arguments either quaint or moot. If we wait for the public to become informed, educated and motivated to act in our common defense, the war is lost.
The cyberattacks on American government, military, corporate and personal systems are stripping away privacy, along with the most closely guarded and sensitive information. Protecting this is the real priority - we are playing catchup with very sophisticated, powerful and unrestricted governments and criminal enterprises (often one and the same).
Corporations have been virtually defenseless against the increasingly aggressive and sophisticated attacks. In some respects the argument has evolved to: who do we trust more with our information - China et al or the American government?
The cyberattacks on American government, military, corporate and personal systems are stripping away privacy, along with the most closely guarded and sensitive information. Protecting this is the real priority - we are playing catchup with very sophisticated, powerful and unrestricted governments and criminal enterprises (often one and the same).
Corporations have been virtually defenseless against the increasingly aggressive and sophisticated attacks. In some respects the argument has evolved to: who do we trust more with our information - China et al or the American government?
3
Begging your pardon, but the line between corporations and "criminal enterprises" has become rather blurred in recent years. So...the real question may be whether we're able to trust -any- entity with access to the resources and brain power to play fast and loose with the rules.
1
How many of you here think NSA has really stopped bulk collection of phone data?
If you do, I'd say your are gullible. If you do, how do you know for sure? It is clear the public has been repeatedly lied to by intelligence officials over the scope of US data gathering programs. And to what degree do you believe Congressional oversight has any impact whatsoever? How many times does Diane Feinstein have to discover she has been bamboozled again?
What is to stop them from ignoring the changed law?
If you do, I'd say your are gullible. If you do, how do you know for sure? It is clear the public has been repeatedly lied to by intelligence officials over the scope of US data gathering programs. And to what degree do you believe Congressional oversight has any impact whatsoever? How many times does Diane Feinstein have to discover she has been bamboozled again?
What is to stop them from ignoring the changed law?
4
I was waiting for someone to make this obvious point. I'm quite sure the NSA hasn't stopped collecting our phone info.
The Feds are adapt at ignoring the law, but you know what they say: "A fish rots from the head down."
The Feds are adapt at ignoring the law, but you know what they say: "A fish rots from the head down."
1
There are no simple answers here.
I most welcome law enforcement nabbing hackers: particularly the ones who are using it for illicit gain or for other evil purposes. Some hackers are very highly skilled and resourceful. It's clear that criminal activity is not always something that private companies can censor and private citizens are often poorly prepared to defend themselves from determined hackers. We are fooling ourselves if we think a "keep out" sign is enough.
Therefore, the only agency that has the authority and power to enforce anything at all against such a menace is, unfortunately, the government. Nevertheless, the last 12 years (including two presidents) also suggests that such government involvement is likely to come with a host of adverse consequences too.
I most welcome law enforcement nabbing hackers: particularly the ones who are using it for illicit gain or for other evil purposes. Some hackers are very highly skilled and resourceful. It's clear that criminal activity is not always something that private companies can censor and private citizens are often poorly prepared to defend themselves from determined hackers. We are fooling ourselves if we think a "keep out" sign is enough.
Therefore, the only agency that has the authority and power to enforce anything at all against such a menace is, unfortunately, the government. Nevertheless, the last 12 years (including two presidents) also suggests that such government involvement is likely to come with a host of adverse consequences too.
First and foremost, when are we going to erect a monument to Mr. Snowdon? Surely he is as essential to our basic liberty and freedom as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, probably more so. I would suggest a statue and rotunda on the Mall, large, regal and lighted at night so that it is visible for miles around.
Second, I, who voted for him twice, can hardly contain my feelings of betrayal and loathing for Barack Obama. What a liar and phony he turned out to be! All those vaunted speeches about freedom and transparency, and he has turned out to be more secretive, clandestine and dishonest than Bush and Cheney, an achievement that did not seem possible.
Will our utterly useless Congress vigorously challenge him on this latest disclosure? Doubtful. There is not enough courage in the entire body to stand up to this increasingly invasive intrusion into our lives. Start building that monument to Snowdon. He deserves it.
Second, I, who voted for him twice, can hardly contain my feelings of betrayal and loathing for Barack Obama. What a liar and phony he turned out to be! All those vaunted speeches about freedom and transparency, and he has turned out to be more secretive, clandestine and dishonest than Bush and Cheney, an achievement that did not seem possible.
Will our utterly useless Congress vigorously challenge him on this latest disclosure? Doubtful. There is not enough courage in the entire body to stand up to this increasingly invasive intrusion into our lives. Start building that monument to Snowdon. He deserves it.
34
If it's any consolation, there are millions of us, your fellow suckers.
1
I have no problem spying on every non-American out there. None. I do have a problem if the spying is targeted on Americans, on American soil. If you need to do that, get a specific warrant.
If the above requirements are too difficult for our agents, fire those agents and hire new ones with more intelligence.
If the above requirements are too difficult for our agents, fire those agents and hire new ones with more intelligence.
1
I am quite willing to sacrifice some of my freedoms to prevent innocent people from being maimed and murdered. When I think about all of the reporting, the actual lack of factual data, I find it hard to believe that access to phone records, besides the fact that it has not hurt anyone, has not helped us in some sort of way either to rule out or include possibilities. I do not believe that the studies that were done had access to real information for all the obvious reasons. Why would you give away the few techniques that we probably have. This is just one more example of the fear in the current moment trumping the fear in the past moment. When we meet up with disaster once again because we have tied one hand behind our back, or as our enemies like to think that they can destroy us because of our own beliefs, people will wonder what we did here and ask, once again, to change boats in mid stream, over and over again. It is a country without resolve, based on total selfishness. We need to get better at all of this, not set ourselves back. Maybe we could find ways to use the data that we have not yet discovered that would deepen all of our security? We will never know. We are too busy putting our heads in the sand, even when we have no head.
2
Study history and you will find that all oppressive governments have failed. The USA which once stood for freedom is now preaching but not practicing, preaching but using it as subterfuge to exploit. We are at the end stage of capitalism and all of these tactics to support the corporations owned by the 1% is self serving and doomed to fail. There is no way that you can sugar coat poverty of ideas and ideals. Our POTUS is trying and has succeeded, up to a point, but the cracks are showing and getting bigger.
What you are saying, basically, is an empty set of ideological platitudes. We are less free today because we are failing to take the necessary precautions to protect the members of our society from the top down. We protect the top, but no one on down. You are mistaken that only the 1% benefit. But then again, you are one of those people, probably, who don't want to pay for anything and do not require any facts to support your position, just ideology. You are the very type that seems to be exploited by the "rush" for freedom. As for sugar coating a poverty of ideas and ideals, that is what the Republican Party is based upon. The President proposes, Congress disposes, and Congress is disposing people like you every day in every way.
"The surveillance activity traces to changes that began after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The government tore down a so-called wall that prevented intelligence and criminal investigators from sharing information about suspected spies and terrorists. The barrier had been erected to protect Americans’ rights because intelligence investigations use lower legal standards than criminal inquiries, but policy makers decided it was too much of an obstacle to terrorism investigations."
Who unilaterally changed the law?
And based upon what?
9/11?
Last I checked, and fourteen years later, law enforcement still has not completed its criminal investigation into the crimes of 9/11 including the completely anomalous in engineering science according to the official explanation, collapses of steel reinforced structures at the WTC, as well as the non-NTSB investigated hit at the Pentagon, and several other aspects of what appears to have been the largest mass murder in the history of the US.
Which means, the NSA is making its own laws based upon false premises, based upon the false narrative from 9/11.
Complete the criminal investigation of the crimes of 9/11 now, so we can proceed logically and legally to protect against similar events.
Who unilaterally changed the law?
And based upon what?
9/11?
Last I checked, and fourteen years later, law enforcement still has not completed its criminal investigation into the crimes of 9/11 including the completely anomalous in engineering science according to the official explanation, collapses of steel reinforced structures at the WTC, as well as the non-NTSB investigated hit at the Pentagon, and several other aspects of what appears to have been the largest mass murder in the history of the US.
Which means, the NSA is making its own laws based upon false premises, based upon the false narrative from 9/11.
Complete the criminal investigation of the crimes of 9/11 now, so we can proceed logically and legally to protect against similar events.
4
No reasonable person is against giving the NSA tools (and access to information) that would help protect us from cyberattacks, the real problem is almost always way they try and hide it from the public. If they had an independent third party storing the data that they could then access when warranted (much like the phone companies are now doing for phone records), then that would probably be something I could live with. But storing data that can later be used without a warrant in unrelated criminal trials of American citizens is clearly over the line. I'm a big Obama supporter, but I am very disappointed in his handling of the NSA and the complete lack of transparency with the American people. Unfortunately, what this country needs now is more true patriots like Edward Snowden.
1
Well said. It's not that we the people are against most of the practices, it's that they are hidden. Hidden from us, even hidden from other lawmakers. I would have liked all this to be publically decided, I mean it's OUR security and OUR privacy we're talking about.
As usual New York Times readers/ as here in the comments section/ are 90% against the "Snowden as Hero" slant that NYT's always takes in reporting this story. Americans know this dirty work needs doing, and that we should not know about it--and the majority know Snowden is a traitor. The war between the US and Russia/China has already begun. Snowden chose his side. Obama is doing the dirty work that needs doing in the early phase of this war...
When actual shooting begins..once we get beyond the hacking phase... the judgement of history will be clear. My money is on Snowden as traitor. Pretty much like Ezra Pound/WWII.
When actual shooting begins..once we get beyond the hacking phase... the judgement of history will be clear. My money is on Snowden as traitor. Pretty much like Ezra Pound/WWII.
4
Snowden is still CIA.
It works the same with Fox news readers. There are always contradictory seeming things but look at the Bible. It is filled with the same.
IS Snowden a hero? No. He gave info to Russia, China & other nations that was secret. He also caused allies public embarrassment of how US spies on them yet they spy on US by releasing some pretty personal things. Snowden has zero info from area 51 thankfully so he didn't do as much damage as some think but enough to qualify for the death penalty of treason if he is captures or returns to US. Once Russia is done with him, they will send him to Siberia. He lives well now a little time but will spend most of his life in hard labor for his dumb actions. CIA should never give so much access to a 20something year old. He's also good looking above avg so he ends in US prison, he will not like the nights with his new husbands. He will be facing down so at least he won't see his husband.
IS Snowden a hero? No. He gave info to Russia, China & other nations that was secret. He also caused allies public embarrassment of how US spies on them yet they spy on US by releasing some pretty personal things. Snowden has zero info from area 51 thankfully so he didn't do as much damage as some think but enough to qualify for the death penalty of treason if he is captures or returns to US. Once Russia is done with him, they will send him to Siberia. He lives well now a little time but will spend most of his life in hard labor for his dumb actions. CIA should never give so much access to a 20something year old. He's also good looking above avg so he ends in US prison, he will not like the nights with his new husbands. He will be facing down so at least he won't see his husband.
Good or bad intentions, protection for big business or spying on Americans or the 'bad guys'. It is Big Brother no matter how you look at it. And without a doubt Big Brother is the future.
This has nothing to do with hackers. Hackers get caught because someone turns them in, or they want recognition for what they've done, not because the NSA is spying on the internet.
The NSA is looking at you, me and your family. They want to know everything we do and they'll continue to do so with or without congressional approval.
The NSA is looking at you, me and your family. They want to know everything we do and they'll continue to do so with or without congressional approval.
7
Yes, but so what? What are you, or me for that matter, doing that could interest anyone else? And yes, privacy is dead, but it's been that way for several decades. The last yes comes from the fact that we are at war. It's us or them, and I'd rather it be us.
1
The NSA is spying on me and my family at Obama's request.
So what?
So STOP.
So what?
So STOP.
1
"Hunting for Hackers".......Good Try. The title seems to attempt to give NSA a pass. They get no pass. They collect EVERYTHING. Obama has been expanding this. There is no excuse for it. If we give up our freedoms for some vague assurances of protection.........we're done. Done.
4
I'm just not sure just what "freedoms" we are giving up. The freedom to send private emails? If it's criminal in nature you'd have to be a fool to put it in an email. Otherwise, so what? And if it really bothers you, send a letter. Remember those?
1
When the CIA Director lied under oath about the existence of domestic spying programs and was not held accountable, why should citizens believe anything told to/at us from the government?
12
Do drug addicts ever want to give up their habits? Criminals ever want to stop crime? Not when its Profitable.
They wont stop, they are a covert op and will do anything they please.
Fed Agencies can transfer money and manpower among themselves off the budget radar, so dont expect the ruse of defunding a particular activity is anything but a ruse.
Look at the photo of the facility. Parking is remote to eliminate building damage to a car bomb. The buildings are fanned out radially and against an earth wall - thats RF energy proofing.
This is a covert MILITARY operation that needs to be turned off.
They wont stop, they are a covert op and will do anything they please.
Fed Agencies can transfer money and manpower among themselves off the budget radar, so dont expect the ruse of defunding a particular activity is anything but a ruse.
Look at the photo of the facility. Parking is remote to eliminate building damage to a car bomb. The buildings are fanned out radially and against an earth wall - thats RF energy proofing.
This is a covert MILITARY operation that needs to be turned off.
5
Not at all sure why it "needs to be turned off." Well, we could simply surrender to all our enemies and end all the bickering. But would you want to do that?
1
There has been a convergence between cyber criminals and elements of statecraft that is not too far removed from the privateers of old; owned and officered by private individuals holding a government commission.
We have seen how both Russia and China shelter and protects their "privateers" as a resource. The NSA might counter this threat, which has already entered a new stage of state-sponsored thievery, however, I am wondering if the government can adroitly wield the resources needed without becoming a cure that is worse than the disease because, regardless of the age, absolute power still has a corrupting influence upon those that presume to wield it.
We have seen how both Russia and China shelter and protects their "privateers" as a resource. The NSA might counter this threat, which has already entered a new stage of state-sponsored thievery, however, I am wondering if the government can adroitly wield the resources needed without becoming a cure that is worse than the disease because, regardless of the age, absolute power still has a corrupting influence upon those that presume to wield it.
1
Fascinating issue to unravel. It produces an intensely emotional debate, but I'm not sure that detractors and proponents can reason a solution.
An analogy is the involvement of civilians in warfare. Cyber attacks draw the public onto the cyber battlefield. Thus we find ourselves with the emotionally driven dichotomies of total surveillance and absolutely no surveillance. There is no discernible line between national defense operation and civilian activities. Citizens live and work on the battleground.
Barring better technical capability, and their may be none, data has to be examined in order to separate out the private information. It's distasteful because another analogy to this is in WW II when the government imprisoned innocent Japanese-Amerivans due to its errant distrust. While citizens aren't incarcerated today, they are forced to sacrifice their privacy. In WW II in Britain, citizens were part of the battles. They gave up some freedom for defense. The U.S. was of course attacked at Pearl Harbor, and there was espionage that citizens were encouraged to defend against.
I think that we just don't have enough knowledge about the effect of surveillance on our networks, and thus we get into this intense debate. As in WW II that saw the unpleasant development of nuclear weapons, with which we have since had to cope, it looks like the unpleasant aspect of modern warfare is network surveillance.
An analogy is the involvement of civilians in warfare. Cyber attacks draw the public onto the cyber battlefield. Thus we find ourselves with the emotionally driven dichotomies of total surveillance and absolutely no surveillance. There is no discernible line between national defense operation and civilian activities. Citizens live and work on the battleground.
Barring better technical capability, and their may be none, data has to be examined in order to separate out the private information. It's distasteful because another analogy to this is in WW II when the government imprisoned innocent Japanese-Amerivans due to its errant distrust. While citizens aren't incarcerated today, they are forced to sacrifice their privacy. In WW II in Britain, citizens were part of the battles. They gave up some freedom for defense. The U.S. was of course attacked at Pearl Harbor, and there was espionage that citizens were encouraged to defend against.
I think that we just don't have enough knowledge about the effect of surveillance on our networks, and thus we get into this intense debate. As in WW II that saw the unpleasant development of nuclear weapons, with which we have since had to cope, it looks like the unpleasant aspect of modern warfare is network surveillance.
1
Just as suspected - the much ballyhooed Freedom Act hasn't made a dent in the NSA's snooping fetish. The agency's tentacles are everywhere. Will we ever get a comprehensive review of all the NSA's activities? These piecemeal sensationalistic revelations just don't cut it. We need a top to bottom examination of all the Department of Homeland Securities' programs and activities, along with an assessment of their legality, their implications for privacy, and their effectiveness in promoting security.
7
Disappointing to see the same old arguments trying to say that our constitutional "rights" to privacy are somehow being violated by this information sifting. Does anyone believe that our enemies (and many of our "friends") are not doing the same thing? The post office has done it since the beginning. The internet is the wild west. Putting private information on it is like broadcasting it on the radio waves, and then (naively) having some expectation that it is private. Sadly, we have placed too much information out there before security and response measures (including detection and retaliation, including lengthy prison sentences) were adequate to deal with breaches.
I have no problem at all with what the NSA is doing.
Do you?
Really??
I have no problem at all with what the NSA is doing.
Do you?
Really??
15
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
1
I guess you missed the part where it states the president of the united states sworn duty is to uphold the constitution of the United States. Which all of this clearly violates
Ooooopppss. Really.
Ooooopppss. Really.
1
I guess you missed the part where I said I have not problem with what they are doing. And it doesn't violate anything except some people's over blown perception of their rights... and their importance to the world.
1
Technical layman, which describes probably 90+% of the people, do not understand that analyzing large data has nothing to do with tracking every individual.
6
That would depend on exactly how the data is analyzed and flagged now doesn't it, Mr. Technical.
The more of this that I hear, the more worried for the United states I get.
1. We have our Government leaders both Democrat and Republican making new laws behind closed doors in secrecy. Why? Are these new laws against the Constitution and the Bill of rights? Are these laws so bad, that they know the people would riot if we found out?
2. These home exercises of Military in rural areas practicing, rounding up citizens, setting off fake ammo. Why would you need to practice in US neighborhoods, unless you thought that is where the next problem will be? The neighborhoods overseas do not look like the ones here. They are preparing for something.
3. The flood of so called immigrants has to be an organized effort between nations for it to happen. The word got out somehow, and the Government has been caught transporting illegals into the United States. Why? Not just for cheap labor.
4. Could this be Obama's United Nations invasion? The new World order being forced on the American People. Minnesota is considering a plea for Muslims to have Sharia Law valid in the state. That is against human rights laws. It is against all other religions evidenced by the deaths of thousands of Christians in Muslim Countries. Why Make a free country into a socialist oppressed one? I just do not get it.
1. We have our Government leaders both Democrat and Republican making new laws behind closed doors in secrecy. Why? Are these new laws against the Constitution and the Bill of rights? Are these laws so bad, that they know the people would riot if we found out?
2. These home exercises of Military in rural areas practicing, rounding up citizens, setting off fake ammo. Why would you need to practice in US neighborhoods, unless you thought that is where the next problem will be? The neighborhoods overseas do not look like the ones here. They are preparing for something.
3. The flood of so called immigrants has to be an organized effort between nations for it to happen. The word got out somehow, and the Government has been caught transporting illegals into the United States. Why? Not just for cheap labor.
4. Could this be Obama's United Nations invasion? The new World order being forced on the American People. Minnesota is considering a plea for Muslims to have Sharia Law valid in the state. That is against human rights laws. It is against all other religions evidenced by the deaths of thousands of Christians in Muslim Countries. Why Make a free country into a socialist oppressed one? I just do not get it.
2
Renger, you're letting paranoid fantasies run away with you. To take only your first point, there is no such thing as a law behind closed doors. If it's in the United States Code, it's published for anyone to read. If not, it's not a law.
1
I tend to agree with the commenters that believe the NSA does no harm in investigating hacking activity from foreign IP addresses. This is different than spying on your own citizens and is exactly what the NSA should be doing, not being distracted by chatter from average US citizens. Considering how quickly China built and put into service their F-22 knock-off, this should be priority 1. Whether you believe Snowden is a traitor or a patriot, he has done the country a service by bringing this to light: given our external threats, the NSA, CIA and other agencies NEED TO FCUS on the real threat(s).
8
Logically, and from an engineering view:
"distracted by chatter from average US citizens. "
Is correct. The mass of data invalidates the database. No one can possibly sort that much data, else it all becomes noise.
This proves they are deliberately spying on Citizens.
"distracted by chatter from average US citizens. "
Is correct. The mass of data invalidates the database. No one can possibly sort that much data, else it all becomes noise.
This proves they are deliberately spying on Citizens.
1
This really isn't a question of whether the US government ought to be investigating cybercrime, but who should be leading the investigation. Criminal investigation isn't in the NSA's mandate, which covers only foreign intelligence. Investigating cybercrime seems to be more in the FBI's bailiwick, where there are stricter regulations on data gathering. The issue of the NSA's scooping up collateral information on innocent US citizens is a real one that should be discussed and decided in a public forum.
1
Some things need to remain secret, and this is one of them. Way to go NYT for telling our enemies (those who want to do us harm) what we are up to....
14
Lol, how exactly, if the "enemy" knows our "spying secrets", will that give them an advantage? I guess they would have to stop targeting the U.S.A. in malware and phishing schemes for fear they would be tracked, or maybe China would be too afraid to use "The Great Cannon" again. Oh, the humanity! Explain how a person could avoid every internet entry point into the Unites States because they simply know it's there. The "enemies" either already know or assume someone is listening. Complete transparency, in this case, does no harm.
1
What kind of dangerous malicious tech-sophisticated foreign enemy predator doesn't know more than the NYT? China, Iran, Isis, Google, Facebook, other such monomaniacal predators and enemies of the people of the US rely on the NYT for their intelligence info? No, for the most part they rely on you, and their hacker trolls. See last Sunday's Mag section, for example.
1
Even done within the strictest scope of the Bill of Rights, the measures taken to protect us from our enemies only address the symptoms and not the disease. The question isn't "how do we protect ourselves from our enemies?" but "Why do we have enemies in the first place?" I'm not suggesting it-takes-two-to-tango naivete. I'm simply saying we'd be better off focusing at least some of our attention on the reasons people want to hurt us in the first place.
7
Agree completely. Terrorism is an "effect" that must have a "cause." For a long time now we have suppressed discussion as to just what we have been doing that puts the target on our backs. But anyone who reads a variety of sources knows the answer to that question--except our legislators and the majority of the American populace.
2
Disappointing to see many of the same misinformed arguments trying to make the case that NSA spying doesn't matter and is OK.
First, if it is such a good thing then let's have an open honest democratic debate about it. If we have decided to give up the protections in the constitution then I we ought to at least decide that openly together. Not just ignore them and then later, when it is leaked they have been broken, argue it was all for best anyway.
Second, the argument that "everything on the internet is insecure" so why worry about privacy. OK sure. Then please post in the comments section you email address and password. Right now. I want to read your emails. This goes for every senator who makes the same case. It is cheap to give away the privacy of others.
Third, even if you are OK with giving away your rights it doesn't mean that I have to be OK to give away mine. If I choose not to take advantage of free speech it doesn't mean that you are forced to give up that right.
Finally, do not take for granted what it means to have lived in society where the government cannot spy on you. This means that if you run for office, or oppose the government your private communications cannot be used against you. Maybe you trust the Obama government. But make sure you want the same standards apply if you personally do not trust or agree with the government. We live in a stable (relatively) well functioning democracy because we control the government and not the other way around.
First, if it is such a good thing then let's have an open honest democratic debate about it. If we have decided to give up the protections in the constitution then I we ought to at least decide that openly together. Not just ignore them and then later, when it is leaked they have been broken, argue it was all for best anyway.
Second, the argument that "everything on the internet is insecure" so why worry about privacy. OK sure. Then please post in the comments section you email address and password. Right now. I want to read your emails. This goes for every senator who makes the same case. It is cheap to give away the privacy of others.
Third, even if you are OK with giving away your rights it doesn't mean that I have to be OK to give away mine. If I choose not to take advantage of free speech it doesn't mean that you are forced to give up that right.
Finally, do not take for granted what it means to have lived in society where the government cannot spy on you. This means that if you run for office, or oppose the government your private communications cannot be used against you. Maybe you trust the Obama government. But make sure you want the same standards apply if you personally do not trust or agree with the government. We live in a stable (relatively) well functioning democracy because we control the government and not the other way around.
75
Andrew, defending NSA domestic spying is being done by people who see their political party allegiance as more important than citizenship.
1
I suspect that the reason our elected 'government' participants were the first targets of Clapper and his boys; that there is embarrassing, if not incriminating data re each and every one in congress stored in thos eservers in Utah, the white house and SCOTUS. Why else is NO ONE, NO ONE in Washington arguing against this
3
Wow, eloquently stated. I think that is the best NYT comment I've ever read.
We ought to be more concerned with the electronic cyber border than the electronic fenced border in Texas.
7
The problem isn't the stated purpose for the intelligence gathering.
The problem is the use of incidental information by other agencies and law enforcement and the inevitable use of the original program as an excuse to gather and use wholly unrelated information that would other wise be protected by the fourth amendment. The U.S. government has a bad track record in this area (using the information to harass lawful, but unpopular political groups) and law enforcement types seem to take pride in abusing the use of this sort of information and then devising claims that they got the information through alternate sources.
"Trust me" doesn't cut in this area.
The problem is the use of incidental information by other agencies and law enforcement and the inevitable use of the original program as an excuse to gather and use wholly unrelated information that would other wise be protected by the fourth amendment. The U.S. government has a bad track record in this area (using the information to harass lawful, but unpopular political groups) and law enforcement types seem to take pride in abusing the use of this sort of information and then devising claims that they got the information through alternate sources.
"Trust me" doesn't cut in this area.
95
Absolutely right!
"Trust me" doesn't cut it with TPP or Iran either.
“It would help if when the president says [Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren] is dead wrong, he would actually make a case to explain why, rather than say, ‘I would never sign a deal that’s not good for working Americans. Trust me.’ That’s what he does with Iran, that’s what he does with everything,” Krauthammer said on Tuesday’s Special Report. But “trusting him is a little hard after what he’s done with Obamacare — ‘If you like your plan, you can keep it” — [or] what he said about Iran: “This is going to prevent a nuclear weapon”; it’s going to do the opposite. So trust is not an argument.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418280/krauthammers-take-after-potu...
For laughs (if it wasn't so sad...)
http://s1.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Iran-Nuke-Fix...
"Trust me" doesn't cut it with TPP or Iran either.
“It would help if when the president says [Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren] is dead wrong, he would actually make a case to explain why, rather than say, ‘I would never sign a deal that’s not good for working Americans. Trust me.’ That’s what he does with Iran, that’s what he does with everything,” Krauthammer said on Tuesday’s Special Report. But “trusting him is a little hard after what he’s done with Obamacare — ‘If you like your plan, you can keep it” — [or] what he said about Iran: “This is going to prevent a nuclear weapon”; it’s going to do the opposite. So trust is not an argument.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418280/krauthammers-take-after-potu...
For laughs (if it wasn't so sad...)
http://s1.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Iran-Nuke-Fix...
What good is security if we lose our rights and our constitution? Our founders knew all to well about government overreach, yet, todays modern citizen fears of terrorism so much that he has been reduced to a quivering mass of jello willing to give up all to big brother. Are we really any safer today that in 2001? I think not!
35
By all means, lets have a National Poll. The first question should be: Is it acceptable to take the chance that the entire Electrical Grid in the country goes down order to preserve your privacy?
8
Given the NSA's poor record (zero discovered terrorist plots) with vacuuming up every phone call what on earth would make you believe this program will protect our infrastructure?
The real way to protect our infrastructure is to not connect it to the public internet. Power companies can send signals over power-lines that are not accessible to anyone other than the companies; what you are advocating for is to let the companies off the hook because they do not want to spend money defending their infrastructure; accepting that choice will always make the electrical grid (and our traffic signals, bridge lifts, railroad track switches ...) vulnerable. The NSA is not omnipotent - it is not going to be able to recognize and stop every threat. Day zero vulnerabilities will often only be spotted after they are used, when it is of course too late.
The NSA, instead of spying on our internet usage, could be working with software and antivirus makers to eliminate the vulnerabilities, or better yet, to develop robust hacker-proof industrial control software (not based on Windows or Unix, but on a more appropriate small kernel like that used on space probes). Instead, they just gather and exploit the vulnerabilities they find, and keep them secret so they can "benefit" from them.
Please do not give up my rights for a mythical benefit.
The real way to protect our infrastructure is to not connect it to the public internet. Power companies can send signals over power-lines that are not accessible to anyone other than the companies; what you are advocating for is to let the companies off the hook because they do not want to spend money defending their infrastructure; accepting that choice will always make the electrical grid (and our traffic signals, bridge lifts, railroad track switches ...) vulnerable. The NSA is not omnipotent - it is not going to be able to recognize and stop every threat. Day zero vulnerabilities will often only be spotted after they are used, when it is of course too late.
The NSA, instead of spying on our internet usage, could be working with software and antivirus makers to eliminate the vulnerabilities, or better yet, to develop robust hacker-proof industrial control software (not based on Windows or Unix, but on a more appropriate small kernel like that used on space probes). Instead, they just gather and exploit the vulnerabilities they find, and keep them secret so they can "benefit" from them.
Please do not give up my rights for a mythical benefit.
2
They refuse to spend the $ required for protection of the grid from EMP so your argument is specious @ best. Please do a little reading here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/07/31/protecting-the-u-s-...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/07/31/protecting-the-u-s-...
1
First it was warrantless secret searches of Americans' private communications, contacts, and movements for the purpose of thwarting terrorism. Now it's doing the same to search for evidence of hackers. (What happened to Obama's dismissal of Snowden as a mere "hacker"?) Now hacking is a national security threat. So what about drugs? Can they comb through all our private communications to look for drugs? What about copyright violations? Can they search your computer for those? What about evidence that you are going to attend a protest? Attend a church? See a lawyer about a personal matter?
56
PS - I'm glad to read at least one NSA lawyer had a conscience, even if it was ignored. Would love to know where he/she is now.
1
I am one of the fiercest critics of the unconstitutional actions of the NSA, but in this, there is no problem. This is actually something they would be very good at.
In short, all this would do is allow the NSA to investigate cases when another government is hacking into American systems.
Sounds perfect.
Except that the NSA is a governmental bureaucracy. As with every bureaucracy, they want to expand their size. This is the nature of government work environments. What is your measure of success if you are a manager? Increasing the number of your staff. In that way, you are more respected. The only way to expand your staff is by increasing the scope of your mission statement. Which, in this case, means staff at the NSA will keep pushing the line until they have authorization to monitor all data coming into and out of America.
Just trying to add a bit of perspective from a former governmental employee.
Edward J. Snowden is as much of a patriot than any of our Founding Fathers.
In short, all this would do is allow the NSA to investigate cases when another government is hacking into American systems.
Sounds perfect.
Except that the NSA is a governmental bureaucracy. As with every bureaucracy, they want to expand their size. This is the nature of government work environments. What is your measure of success if you are a manager? Increasing the number of your staff. In that way, you are more respected. The only way to expand your staff is by increasing the scope of your mission statement. Which, in this case, means staff at the NSA will keep pushing the line until they have authorization to monitor all data coming into and out of America.
Just trying to add a bit of perspective from a former governmental employee.
Edward J. Snowden is as much of a patriot than any of our Founding Fathers.
63
Look at the photo david and compare the parking lot with the building (look at other photos too, same amount of cars). Just how many people are working there do you thin?. I know that that parking lot holds about 1/4 of the cars a of a well known insurance company I one worked for.
So does this mean all those hi paid analyst are working off site using the internet to transfer the scoffed up "security" data? not very secure if that's the case.
So does this mean all those hi paid analyst are working off site using the internet to transfer the scoffed up "security" data? not very secure if that's the case.
1
Taking over 1 million top secret documents, most having nothing to do with domestic data collection, and giving them to Vladimir Putin, is the action of a spy, not a patriot .
If his actions had been limited to his alleged concern ( domestic) that would be a different matter.
If his actions had been limited to his alleged concern ( domestic) that would be a different matter.
Edward Snowden has become a pain. Those who praise hacking state secrets, and giving them to the rest of the world, need to grow up and stop living a fantasy of him 'getting' the government. Some people on these forums think it is your right to know everything the government does. Ok then. Get an education and get a job in government and stop trying to live vicariously thru Snowden.
Don't state your need to know. You are not that important. Just sound like paranoid sillies. Even worse. adulation to hacker who is having a grand time creating millionaire status by touring countries speaking about what data he has stolen from government files while his American audience cheer him on. Grow up for life's sake.
Don't state your need to know. You are not that important. Just sound like paranoid sillies. Even worse. adulation to hacker who is having a grand time creating millionaire status by touring countries speaking about what data he has stolen from government files while his American audience cheer him on. Grow up for life's sake.
I love that Edward Snowden is throwing bricks at the United Stats' security establishment from the safety of that haven or civil liberties, domestic tranquility, governmental respect for privacy, and due process: Vlad Putin's Russian Federation. Call me stupid, but I do not at all suspect that the FSS or FIS is behind the timing and scope of his revelations. I know we do not hear the same revelations about the Russians or Chinese or North Koreans from Snowden because, of course, they do not violate the privacy of United States' citizens anything like the NSA does, and therefore they are none of his or his co-conspirators (Greenwald, Assange & Co.) concern.
1
The irony of this comment is that had the State Department not revoked Edward Snowden's passport while transiting Russia, trapping him in Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport, he would have completed travel to his intended destination. If the government is that uncomfortable with his presence in Russia, they could easily remedy that by restoring his passport long enough to reach Ecuador, which had granted him asylum and his intended destination!
Snowden did not take the NSA documents he obtained with him to Russia, but rather turned them over to the journalists he met in Hong Kong, and left to their discretion, what should and should not, be made public. The fault, if any, in improperly releasing documents which should not have been released, rests with them!
Snowden did not take the NSA documents he obtained with him to Russia, but rather turned them over to the journalists he met in Hong Kong, and left to their discretion, what should and should not, be made public. The fault, if any, in improperly releasing documents which should not have been released, rests with them!
1
Look, Russia is hacking us. They probably know as much about us as the NSA. Corporations are spying on us as well. We live in an electronic world. Our information is not safe. There is no electronic privacy whether it is the NSA, Russia, China, or Google. I am just not livid about the NSA when others are out to steal from us. And then there are terrorists as well. Snowden went to Russia and Russia is using that information I am sure. He was not a hero. I think we just have to live in a world where we choose which monsters to fight, and for me it is not the NSA.
57
China too, one of my gmail accounts was hacked from China.
1
This comment supposes, at its core, that Snowden is a traitor whose purpose was to provide information to the Russians. The only difference from commentators who initially called for Snowden to be tried for treason is that it is less explicit. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence that other governments are as capable as the NSA in intercepting information. We know other governments, including our allies, try to spy on us, but our intelligence spending, and the liberty we give our intelligence services, make their efforts a lot more difficult.
I'm torn by this. For one, it involves spying on Americans and the data gathered has an unfortunate habit of ending up in the hands of domestic law enforcement fishing expeditions, especially the pernicious DEA who use it for parallel construction of cases they couldn't make using normal constitutional means. I also worry it will be used for chasing down whistleblowers and other political enemies who get lumped under the rubric of "hacker".
On the other hand, the Internet is a transnational phenomenon where the normal definition and meaning of national borders applies only weakly. And given the powers and prowess of the NSA, I've felt it frustrating that this national asset has not been brought to bear on foreign entities whose actions disrupt commerce and threaten the economic security of American citizens.
And many of these foreign entities aren't officially state sponsored, they are either outright criminal gangs or functional freelancers who are given shelter by nations who either tolerate their actions and/or encourage them to the extent they can share in the fruits of their misdeeds.
On the other hand, the Internet is a transnational phenomenon where the normal definition and meaning of national borders applies only weakly. And given the powers and prowess of the NSA, I've felt it frustrating that this national asset has not been brought to bear on foreign entities whose actions disrupt commerce and threaten the economic security of American citizens.
And many of these foreign entities aren't officially state sponsored, they are either outright criminal gangs or functional freelancers who are given shelter by nations who either tolerate their actions and/or encourage them to the extent they can share in the fruits of their misdeeds.
20
They, whomever, whatever can spy on me all they want. If i knew who they were, i would be tempted to buy them coffee. My life, what i have written, etc., is just so plain ordinary.....BORING.
A mushroom cloud, over your city, would not be boring. Spy away.
A mushroom cloud, over your city, would not be boring. Spy away.
10
Absolute privacy and effective security are not compatible. Who do you blame when terrorism occurs?Of course you blame the government and the security agencies! Cannot have it both ways.
9
I'm a huge critic of NSA spying on Americans, but this single policy, with judicial
supervision (and I don't mean NSA's pet judges) could be of value. The problem is that NSA's arrogant attitude has made us mistrust any program they are in favor of.
supervision (and I don't mean NSA's pet judges) could be of value. The problem is that NSA's arrogant attitude has made us mistrust any program they are in favor of.
6
Snowden selectively unloaded all this information 2 years ago, leaving out critical documents indicating the high-level criticism and limits to the programs that have come out since then. The "journalists" he gave it to have sat on it all this time instead of being transparent and letting us know ALL of what the NSA has done. Their lack of disclosure is no more justified than that of "The Government".
10
One of the things which Congress could do is to add a provision that
a) would establish a position within the intelligence and regulatory agencies to protect citizens (including military) from political abuse of information collected
b) make it a felony with minimum jail times of say 10 years to use ANY information collected for intelligence or regulatory purposes for political purposes as was done multiple times by the Obama administration.
c) make it a felony to fail to report any reasonable suspicion that such activities are taking place within 24 hours
The incredibly corrupt cooperation between the IRS , white house and congressional offices regarding the tea party and other conservative groups is just the tip of the corrupt iceberg threatening the very existence of our democracy. There's also abundant evidence that information collected for national security purposes is being used for political purposes.
There should also be a law prohibiting the government from delaying, modifying or disrupting any internet communication without a court authorization or declaration of emergency with strict limitations. High ranking Obama officials have openly advocated that the federal government moderate the internet, delaying or modifying communications which have no significant national security threat but which may challenge the administration's position or protect its criminal activity from exposure. Same requirement to notify if known
a) would establish a position within the intelligence and regulatory agencies to protect citizens (including military) from political abuse of information collected
b) make it a felony with minimum jail times of say 10 years to use ANY information collected for intelligence or regulatory purposes for political purposes as was done multiple times by the Obama administration.
c) make it a felony to fail to report any reasonable suspicion that such activities are taking place within 24 hours
The incredibly corrupt cooperation between the IRS , white house and congressional offices regarding the tea party and other conservative groups is just the tip of the corrupt iceberg threatening the very existence of our democracy. There's also abundant evidence that information collected for national security purposes is being used for political purposes.
There should also be a law prohibiting the government from delaying, modifying or disrupting any internet communication without a court authorization or declaration of emergency with strict limitations. High ranking Obama officials have openly advocated that the federal government moderate the internet, delaying or modifying communications which have no significant national security threat but which may challenge the administration's position or protect its criminal activity from exposure. Same requirement to notify if known
1
I have a poor understanding of the internet, but if it is possible to have every user register with a (traceable) real name and address (like a telephone directory) before *anything* can be transmitted, I would sacrifice my privacy for that.
1
What, if anything, is known about the ability of US Intelligence to a) tap into the world's existing fiber-optic cables and b) to arrange for new fiber-optic cables to have a 'feeder' running directly into the NSA facility at Bluffdale, Utah?
I might support this kind of surveillance if it was actually successful at stopping something.
BUT IT'S NOT!
It missed the Fort Hood killer, the Boston bombers and who knows what else that I can't remember right now.
Then to find out that they failed to stop the theft of my personal, private information from Target and Anthem while secretly and probably illegally monitoring for exactly that kind of thing, is infuriating. My family now has to monitor our credit reports for the rest of our lives because of this hacking.
What's the point of all this N.S.A. spying, if it doesn't work?
Equally infuriating is to hear our President give lip-service to transparency all the while hiding this program.
I've lost my privacy in exchange for some questionable security and I'm disgusted with the results. I want all my privacy back and am perfectly willing to take the risk of no security.
BUT IT'S NOT!
It missed the Fort Hood killer, the Boston bombers and who knows what else that I can't remember right now.
Then to find out that they failed to stop the theft of my personal, private information from Target and Anthem while secretly and probably illegally monitoring for exactly that kind of thing, is infuriating. My family now has to monitor our credit reports for the rest of our lives because of this hacking.
What's the point of all this N.S.A. spying, if it doesn't work?
Equally infuriating is to hear our President give lip-service to transparency all the while hiding this program.
I've lost my privacy in exchange for some questionable security and I'm disgusted with the results. I want all my privacy back and am perfectly willing to take the risk of no security.
5
Though the NSA does do good things like fight against foreign enemies, the whole meta data thing will be used for blackmail purposes. Just think of how much data is out there on the internet about our lives. A lot of people use the internet like they are in their own little world, not realizing everything you say and do is being recorded or a record of it anyway.
So many people divulge the most private stuff or do things that could destroy their lives if the right people got a hold of that data. The wrong people with the right data could do a lot of damage or compromise people. I've read stories of hacker groups for instance getting blackmail worthy material on people and making money doing this.
I think people need to start treating the internet like they are drug dealers and only doing and saying so much over this line of communication. You never know who could be listening or gathering what data on you. As we become a society straight out of 1984 I actually think we are there already more or less, I think taking steps to protect yourself and your family is going to be more and more important. I mean think about it the Defense Department created the internet more or less it's a military application and therefore a powerful weapon. The internet is the worlds largest Honey Trap.
So many people divulge the most private stuff or do things that could destroy their lives if the right people got a hold of that data. The wrong people with the right data could do a lot of damage or compromise people. I've read stories of hacker groups for instance getting blackmail worthy material on people and making money doing this.
I think people need to start treating the internet like they are drug dealers and only doing and saying so much over this line of communication. You never know who could be listening or gathering what data on you. As we become a society straight out of 1984 I actually think we are there already more or less, I think taking steps to protect yourself and your family is going to be more and more important. I mean think about it the Defense Department created the internet more or less it's a military application and therefore a powerful weapon. The internet is the worlds largest Honey Trap.
The NSA is absolutely right to do what it's doing. It's time to fight fire with fire...or are we going to discover that too late after cyber-criminals take down the banking system, the electric grid, etc.?
The only service the misguided Snowden has done is removing himself to Russia. His revelations will ultimately make us more vulnerable. Thanks, Eddie.
The only service the misguided Snowden has done is removing himself to Russia. His revelations will ultimately make us more vulnerable. Thanks, Eddie.
3
At this point we should assume that everything is under surveillance.
3
"Everything is under surveillance" except the secret, unwarranted and likely illegal actions of President Obama who continues to violate the Constitution as if he's never heard of it.
6
I am also against malicious computer hacking. Good for the president.
4
As am I. The one good aspect of this is, if they catch very skilled hackers they can make them a deal they can't refuse and use them as tools to catch more hackers. Though the internet is still the worlds largest Honey Trap, people should do as little personal business over the internet as possible.
I know it's impossible for global corps, and businesses but for individuals stick to playing games and watching cat videos. Unless you yourself are a very skilled computer ace, you're just playing with fire. Tracebook how intel agencies of the world must live this Honey trap. I can see a day where carrier pigeons make a comeback or secret meetings, as our world becomes more and more Orwellian.
I know it's impossible for global corps, and businesses but for individuals stick to playing games and watching cat videos. Unless you yourself are a very skilled computer ace, you're just playing with fire. Tracebook how intel agencies of the world must live this Honey trap. I can see a day where carrier pigeons make a comeback or secret meetings, as our world becomes more and more Orwellian.
1
It is intriguing to me that this is yet another government deception. Isn't the military government the biggest internet hacker looking for the little ones and also the foreign government ones?
What a shame that once again the American public is victimized by all hackers conducting their cyberwar.
Long ago, the internet was built by the world citizens to conduct peaceful discourse and friendship, only to be taken over by warmongers everywhere in the world.
What a shame that once again the American public is victimized by all hackers conducting their cyberwar.
Long ago, the internet was built by the world citizens to conduct peaceful discourse and friendship, only to be taken over by warmongers everywhere in the world.
2
The internet was created by the Defense Department. It's a weapon it should be viewed as one of the most powerful weapons on the planet. God help you if it ever becomes weaponized against you. People need to quit being so open on the internet with their private lives and start becoming much more secretive.
What you think is a clam meadow with flowers and birds singing in a clear blue sky is anything but. Think about people today the trail they leave, how much of their lives are lived in cyber space. All it takes is people who don't have your best intentions at heart to decide to use this tool as a weapon against you and a lot of bad things can happen.
What you think is a clam meadow with flowers and birds singing in a clear blue sky is anything but. Think about people today the trail they leave, how much of their lives are lived in cyber space. All it takes is people who don't have your best intentions at heart to decide to use this tool as a weapon against you and a lot of bad things can happen.
Well I guess people who play video games now or have overseas friends better be careful with what you look up. Big Brother is watching.
1
Him or hacker activist groups, as well as organized crime, or just your run of the mill hacker criminals. Also not just big brother Uncle Sam, but every government of the world. Welcome to 1984 my friend. As humanity descends into a more totalitarian society people really need to watch their six. The ironic side effect about all of this amazing technology is human society is becoming more centralized and more centralization leads to more totalitarianism.
The N.S.A.’s activities run “smack into law enforcement land,” said Jonathan Mayer, a cybersecurity scholar at Stanford Law School who has researched privacy issues and who reviewed several of the documents. “That’s a major policy decision about how to structure cybersecurity in the U.S. and not a conversation that has been had in public.”
Give it a rest Jonathan, and save your academic research.
Without giving you my curriculum vitae, and having dealt with this in the "real world," I will tell you that I'm much more familiar with this issue than you are, and the only agency up to the task is the NSA.
Give it a rest Jonathan, and save your academic research.
Without giving you my curriculum vitae, and having dealt with this in the "real world," I will tell you that I'm much more familiar with this issue than you are, and the only agency up to the task is the NSA.
4
Have you reviewed any of the documents that Mayer has?
How do you come to the conclusion this is not law enforcement? Why does the NSA need to be the lead agency for hackers who are not targeting defense or national infrastructure?
I live in the "real world" too. The NSA has clearly overstepped their boundaries when they surveilled US citizens at home, that is a domestic law enforcement activity even if it relates to terrorism.
There are no substantiated protections in place to prevent overstepping behavior today. There are only opaque courts and assurances that they will be good in the future. i'm not buying it, and apparently neither are many others who are concerned about the current atmosphere of surveillance and deceit.
How do you come to the conclusion this is not law enforcement? Why does the NSA need to be the lead agency for hackers who are not targeting defense or national infrastructure?
I live in the "real world" too. The NSA has clearly overstepped their boundaries when they surveilled US citizens at home, that is a domestic law enforcement activity even if it relates to terrorism.
There are no substantiated protections in place to prevent overstepping behavior today. There are only opaque courts and assurances that they will be good in the future. i'm not buying it, and apparently neither are many others who are concerned about the current atmosphere of surveillance and deceit.
2
The NSA did such a spectacular job of preventing 9-11. The Tsarnaev brothers, that was another victory of monumental stature. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, the glory continues. But it does turn out that they can monitor people playing Angry Birds. Be careful George Eliot. OVER.
1
The NSA isn't even remotely close to being up to the job - no one is. Or everyone is - everyone can manage their own infrastructure they're responsible for and if they do it well, the vast majority of attacks can be foiled. I've also dealt with this in the real world and have even been hacked a couple of times and both times it was a mistake I made. The more we decentralise our infrastructure (microgrids or self-sustaining homes, etc.) and use proper encryption and security measures, the better off we'll be, such that if people or institutions are hacked, the damage is minimal.
I don't doubt for a moment that in the long term, the NSA or any single government agencies (or even government) will win this war without completely crippling the Internet.
I don't doubt for a moment that in the long term, the NSA or any single government agencies (or even government) will win this war without completely crippling the Internet.
"Without public notice, the Obama administration has expanded the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international Internet traffic..."?
So much for the widely-touted "sea change" in US and NSA surveillance practices resulting from the "Freedom Act"...
The more things change...the more it's the same thing!
So much for the widely-touted "sea change" in US and NSA surveillance practices resulting from the "Freedom Act"...
The more things change...the more it's the same thing!
5
We need more information to determine whether this is an actual invasion of our privacy. Searching for strings of malicious code and malware is very different than searching phone or email records. The latter implicates completely innocent parties and can turn innocent people into unwarranted subjects of investigation. But the former, by definition, targets wrongdoers. People complain constantly about hacking and stolen information - this is DOING something about it!!! Of course, it remains to be seen whether there are stringent protections for hacking victims' data that get swept in, which could pose a risk to individual privacy. If there are, however, I only see this as a good thing.
3
These comments have a thread of blaming the messenger running through them. The Times is doing its job by publicizing what it's found regarding this new flavor of Internet traffic interception. Whether one agrees with the policy or not is a separate issue from the question whether the public should be officially told what our government is doing in our name. That, I believe, falls into the category of "transparency".
5
Is this still going on despite the curtailment of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act?
If it is, Congress needs to revisit this issue urgently. If the government wants to look at information, it needs a specific warrant; that is the right we fought the British to establish. The day we decide warrants are not necessary we will have irrevocably changed our country.
It would be nice to see some trials, ending in substantial jail time, for individuals who have overstepped their Constitutional authority.
If it is, Congress needs to revisit this issue urgently. If the government wants to look at information, it needs a specific warrant; that is the right we fought the British to establish. The day we decide warrants are not necessary we will have irrevocably changed our country.
It would be nice to see some trials, ending in substantial jail time, for individuals who have overstepped their Constitutional authority.
11
You are wrong. If the government wants to intercept and copy the information in the first place, it needs a specific warrant. Whether or not they look at it is irrelevant... the search, which we are protected against by the Constitution, takes place as soon as the data hits their server (or a tel-com server, if they are required by law to store the data for a possible later search by the government). And, we don't need jail time for people who violate this principle, we need rope and a gallows. From the politicians down to the guy sweeping the floor at the NSA, hang them all.
The British were not attacking and changing identities 1000's of times every 10 microseconds. The idea that a separate written warrant be issued faster than that is absurd!
We can't pretend that the cyber world will slow down to our 18th century judicial pace just to suit our romantic ideas of rights and freedoms. We need to update our constitution into the 21st century.
We can't pretend that the cyber world will slow down to our 18th century judicial pace just to suit our romantic ideas of rights and freedoms. We need to update our constitution into the 21st century.
2
One of the most distinct aspects of an effective prison is that everything is monitored and controlled.
35
Google the term Panopticon, read the wikipedia article of what it is. This is what system is being designed for our society.
Then how do you explain tHe illegal drugs that end up in prisons and the cell phones?
The president swears to protect the constitution of the United States, not to subvert to 'protect' the country
9
He is not protecting the nation, he is promoting the destruction of the nation governed by the constitution.
Not everything is for public consumption, even in a democracy. Public airing and debate about how to "secretly" combat cyber attacks runs counterproductive to stopping the attacks. This is a 20th century conversation in the 21st century; time to think for the 21st century.
91
Nobody's interested in stopping the attacks. We could do that tomorrow, at no cost (we could actually give a hefty refund to each taxpayer), by closing all foreign bases and ending all foreign aid. Every analyst, from the FBI to the CIA to the DoD, agrees that our foreign policy, foreign bases, and putting the interests of foreign governments ahead of the interests of the American people (yes, I'm talking about Israel) is what is motivating anti-American sentiment.
1
It would be a worthy response if the administration was worthy of trust . But they have repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for the truth, for telling the truth and for acting within the law.
Seriously? We are talking about breaching constitutional rights. Is the constitution too 20th century for you? Are you suggesting we now live in a world where the government sets its own rules? How exactly do we ever make sure our rights are maintained if the actions of the government are not open to public debate and scrutiny? You are giving up something extremely important to gain something whose value is questionable at best.
3
If its a secret then how do we know about it?
3
Secret Courts, secret memo's, and ever-expanding need for surveillance because, you know, everyone is a potential threat to our security.
The funny thing is that the dangerous threats to our institutions, businesses and government agencies is inadequate prevention measures up front from these businesses and government agencies.
If foreign intelligence hackers and criminal hackers are so adept at out witting our NSA, FBI, CIA and military intelligence, what's the purpose of all the secrecy, why not lay out the cards on the table so we can have that public debate.
Again, if it wasn't for Eric Snowden, most Americans would still be in the dark about the actions of our government in the name of national security.
The funny thing is that the dangerous threats to our institutions, businesses and government agencies is inadequate prevention measures up front from these businesses and government agencies.
If foreign intelligence hackers and criminal hackers are so adept at out witting our NSA, FBI, CIA and military intelligence, what's the purpose of all the secrecy, why not lay out the cards on the table so we can have that public debate.
Again, if it wasn't for Eric Snowden, most Americans would still be in the dark about the actions of our government in the name of national security.
58
Wrong. As the article points out, we have known about it since 2005. It's just that the NYT decided to stop looking at some point.
2
If it weren't for Snowden, the Russian government - and the Russian mafia - wouldn't have access to millions of pages of classified material, such as that exposed here in this article. I would rather be "in the dark" about the specificities of how our government works to protect us, than have all of that information shared with those they are trying to protect us from. Snowden is still a traitor to our country, naïve and vainglorious, both intelligent and stupid.
2
This is what the NSA should be doing, and it should be their top priority. Foreigner hackers don't get 4th amendment rights.
67
Did you read the article? The NSA doesn't distinguish between foreign and domestic. Therein lies their crime.
They'll do what they want and they'll manicure any law as they see fit and who's gonna stop them - even Rand Paul couldn't.
20
This wouldn't be such a problem if the collected data was being used appropriately. We know for a fact that it's being used by law enforcement (including the DEA) on a daily basis to investigate Americans who have never been convicted of a crime. We KNOW the data is being used for domestic law enforcement purposes.
14
How is it that you KNOW? Citations please.
1
What would happen if another 09-11 occurred and it is found that lack of intelligence was the root cause? That if our government had conducted surveillance more efficiently, the attack would have been prevented. Can anyone answer that question, please?
6
In the investigation of 9-11 the FBI was crucified for failing to follow up on reports from private sector flight instructors, in several states, that people on Tourist & Student Visas were enrolling in flight school pilot training, but refusing lessons on taxing and taking-off of commercial size air craft.
3
ohio asks "What would happen if another 9-11 occurred and it is found that lack of intelligence was the root cause?"
We have heard these "what if" hypotheticals for years, even as defenses for the most idiotic behavior by TSA personnel, or the "needle in a haystack" justifications for, uh, adding more hay. Meanwhile, the Boston Marathon bombers went about their business, even though the Russian government had warned US officials about them.
Lack of intelligence? No, lack of plain common sense by the self-styled "intelligence community." But knowledge about the private communications of everyone gives the possessors of that knowledge an enormous amount of power. State security agencies the world over, including US ones, have taken advantage of that, over and over.
We have heard these "what if" hypotheticals for years, even as defenses for the most idiotic behavior by TSA personnel, or the "needle in a haystack" justifications for, uh, adding more hay. Meanwhile, the Boston Marathon bombers went about their business, even though the Russian government had warned US officials about them.
Lack of intelligence? No, lack of plain common sense by the self-styled "intelligence community." But knowledge about the private communications of everyone gives the possessors of that knowledge an enormous amount of power. State security agencies the world over, including US ones, have taken advantage of that, over and over.
3
Forget all the fake threats the media goes on about 24/7, It's the NSA one should be concerned about...
Being tracked every day, around the clock is TERROR.
Being tracked every day, around the clock is TERROR.
43
Google the term Panopticon it's a type of prison. Welcome to our brave new world.
3
So get off Facebook, Google, Amazon (don't buy any knives there for sure), Instagram, YouTube, etc. Big Data in the corporate world is ultimately more dangerous, because they're not concerned with anything except creating all-knowing algorithms to make you buy stuff, in short, work for their profit, without even knowing that they are manipulating you at the deepest levels, like the ones your Apple watch report to some 60 big data aggregators, and no doubt, directly or indirectly, to the NSA.
1
Pretty sure it's the "warrantless" piece of this that should disturb citizens, not the search for hackers. And one person's hacker could be another person's wikileaks
60
Obama's first duty is to protect the USA. This is a necessary step in the expanding cyberwarefare and our defense.
111
Obama's first duty is to defend the constitution, not defend the country.
40
Obama's first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
That means obeying laws instead of skirting them and lying about it.
If Obama is free to do as he pleases, America basically has a fox guarding the henhouse and we are shocked when chickens go missing.
That means obeying laws instead of skirting them and lying about it.
If Obama is free to do as he pleases, America basically has a fox guarding the henhouse and we are shocked when chickens go missing.
78
Obama's first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizures. Certainly, collecting data like this constitutes an unreasonable search. A judge has already declared that to be the case.
16
Just what part of "Secret" does the NYTimes not understand? We are under the most sophisticated levels of cyberattack on an almost daily basis. The Internet knows no boundaries, so the complaint that the components of the that system that were accessed were "on American soil" is a meaningless distinction, designed solely to arouse the readership when its technical significance is zero.
That that traitor, Edward Snowden first disclosed the information does not absolve you from legal responsibility for its wider dissemination. Anyone passing on information they know to be classified, no matter how it came into their possession, is in violation of the law. And, in my opinion, should be punished. Of course, if the reporters who participated in this criminal act were to be pursued by the DOJ, you'd be bleating "First Amendment! First Amendment!" as if that absolves you in advance from obeying any law.
Will you be satisfied only when America is blind, deaf, and defenseless against onslaughts be its enemies?
That that traitor, Edward Snowden first disclosed the information does not absolve you from legal responsibility for its wider dissemination. Anyone passing on information they know to be classified, no matter how it came into their possession, is in violation of the law. And, in my opinion, should be punished. Of course, if the reporters who participated in this criminal act were to be pursued by the DOJ, you'd be bleating "First Amendment! First Amendment!" as if that absolves you in advance from obeying any law.
Will you be satisfied only when America is blind, deaf, and defenseless against onslaughts be its enemies?
101
Who are the enemies? If the government controls classification and disclosing classified information is illegal, then the government is unaccountable. Who is the enemy? the government or the people? Our problem is that we are all subject to government racketeering on a grand scale and there is no way out, primarily because of views that make government all powerful .
9
American is already blind, deaf, and defenseless against onslaughts by it's enemies...but it turns out that it's "enemies" are the American Government itself!
Brian Hale, the spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said, “It should come as no surprise that the U.S. government gathers intelligence on foreign powers that attempt to penetrate U.S. networks and steal the private information of U.S. citizens and companies.”
That is some "secret" you are so upset about.
That is some "secret" you are so upset about.
1
The real defenders of America are and have always been the American people. Get them into this. If we're in danger, tell us about it and let us do something about it. It's hard to believe that Gen. Keith Alexander has anything on his priority list that doesn't feature Gen. ( ex-Gen.?) Keith Alexander.
9
Ok, so what's wrong with this? Is it not the "most open and transparent" form of governing?
10
Good. There is no protection of a hacker's "privacy" when they devote their lives to invading yours. Turn NSA loose on these unscrupulous bandits.
99
The fact that you refer to them as "hackers" tells me that you have no knowledge of that actual field.
I agree that malicious internet users should be prosecuted but holding a gun to everyone's head and calling it "security" is not the way. The justice of this country is suppose to be reactive and not proactive. A person must commit a crime and then be punished. The NSA goes out and looks at everyone and decides who it wants to prosecute based on potential "threats". News flash....everyone commits a crime each day. Did you come to a complete stop and wait 2 seconds at that red light before turning right? Nope...that is a crime and maybe one day the NSA deems you a road terrorist. See where this is going. Right now it is only people with beards and accents but soon it will be everyone for anything they want.
I agree that malicious internet users should be prosecuted but holding a gun to everyone's head and calling it "security" is not the way. The justice of this country is suppose to be reactive and not proactive. A person must commit a crime and then be punished. The NSA goes out and looks at everyone and decides who it wants to prosecute based on potential "threats". News flash....everyone commits a crime each day. Did you come to a complete stop and wait 2 seconds at that red light before turning right? Nope...that is a crime and maybe one day the NSA deems you a road terrorist. See where this is going. Right now it is only people with beards and accents but soon it will be everyone for anything they want.
6
Jim, rolling through a stop sign is a traffic infraction and is not considered a criminal offense. Hence, it is not a crime.
I've gone back over my day so far and nope, didn't commit any crimes today. Of course there's still time. I might rob a bank or something.
The serious point is that government snooping is bad enough without taking it to a place it doesn't belong, which becomes counter-productive to solving the problem. I'm happy to call my representatives and tell them to stop the NSA spying program. If I tell them that the NSA might consider me a terrorist if I run a stop sign or jaywalk they may not take me very seriously.
I've gone back over my day so far and nope, didn't commit any crimes today. Of course there's still time. I might rob a bank or something.
The serious point is that government snooping is bad enough without taking it to a place it doesn't belong, which becomes counter-productive to solving the problem. I'm happy to call my representatives and tell them to stop the NSA spying program. If I tell them that the NSA might consider me a terrorist if I run a stop sign or jaywalk they may not take me very seriously.
What you fail to see is that we are turning the NSA loose on all of us and hoping they find {the boogey man of the day}. We fought a war against general warrants. I'll stick with the American way - land of the free, home of the brave. Perhaps North Korea has the total information awareness you are looking for.
1
I for one welcome and embrace the actions of our NSA overlords. How can we be secure if we have even the least shred of privacy? The question answers itself. Naysayers can be assumed to have something sinister to hide and should be treated accordingly.
16
I think "Uncle Joe" McCarthy used much the same argument... that worked out so well.
3
This venture is one of those which motivated me to initiate
www.orwell-1984-award.org
This inititiative for awarding journalisitc or media contributions to the subject is not just to opposae any NSA activitiy, rather than to foster intelligent debates on the pros and cons of surveilance as currently exercised by the secret services.
www.orwell-1984-award.org
This inititiative for awarding journalisitc or media contributions to the subject is not just to opposae any NSA activitiy, rather than to foster intelligent debates on the pros and cons of surveilance as currently exercised by the secret services.
2
There is an inescapable irony in the NSA using security flaws in systems to Hoover up data instead of revealing those flaws to be fixed so that we are better protected.
(yes Hoover is capitalized in honor of the former FBI director - he would be proud)
(yes Hoover is capitalized in honor of the former FBI director - he would be proud)
People think this is a bad thing? It needs to be done, Hackers are costing the US and our Businesses millions. Granted it should be something for the FBI to do, but honestly if your concern is the potential privacy issues this may cause, does it really matter which government agency?
80
Of course it matters. Government agencies are limited by "we the people's" representatives in Congress. Do you want the FBI monitoring your IRS info? Oops, to late.
2
You don't get it.
These so called "investigative techniques" gut our entire system of law and jurisprudence.
There are hundreds of years of precedent and procedure which we forfeit if we allow the NSA and other to run roughshod over the Constitution and laws.
Everything from habeus corpus, to 4th amendment rights, to rules of evidence goes out the window if we allow this wholesale sifting of our person, papers and effects, absent a warrant, signed by a judge.
East Germany operated like this.
But this is the USA.
Object to the lawless actions of the NSA and others agencies.
Or kiss your country good by.
These so called "investigative techniques" gut our entire system of law and jurisprudence.
There are hundreds of years of precedent and procedure which we forfeit if we allow the NSA and other to run roughshod over the Constitution and laws.
Everything from habeus corpus, to 4th amendment rights, to rules of evidence goes out the window if we allow this wholesale sifting of our person, papers and effects, absent a warrant, signed by a judge.
East Germany operated like this.
But this is the USA.
Object to the lawless actions of the NSA and others agencies.
Or kiss your country good by.
4