All your mail are belong to us? Or PRISM

[Earniel]

A lot of dust-up on the 'net these days about Prism. The report that the NSA routineously collected metadata from Verizon was just the tip of the iceberg, as some of internet giants are said to have happily handed over access to user-data as well.

There's a lot of speculation going on rather than hard evidence from what I've been reading. Of course the internet giants are denying they're allowing unfettered access to their user data, but they're being a bit coy about how much access they do allow, then. It seems to be anyone' guess, really.

I find myself hardly surprised that governments would amass data on people through internet and phone companies, whether it's specific or general info. (Although I am rather annoyed at the idea that the NSA is more interested in foreign people's data and that American people shouldn't worry? WTF is that about? Like it's no less of an intrusion in privacy if you only do it to foreigners? We have our own big brother to deal with, don't need an American one on top of that.)

I kinda wonder what sort of data server they'd need to keep everyone's phone records and internet use data well, indefinitely. I suspect it won't be working with mere terrabites, if such a secret server does exist.

Anyway, it'd be interesting to hear other people's opinion on this.

[Mari]

Undoubtedly if this all is true, there must be some kind of reward for the internet giants. They work with the best hackers. Surely the NSA couldn't just gain access without their knowledge.

[Earniel]

Yeah, that is one of the things that remain unclear to me. Or the NSA has 'hacked' the internet and has found a way to get all that information without help of the big internet companies. If which case pretty much any good hacker should be to repeat the process as I doubt the NSA has the best of the best hackers available and no other hacker has those skills, which seems doubtful to me.

Or the internet companies either allow the NSA access to their user data (limited or otherwise) and specifically hand them the data when requested. The companies all seem to say they're doing the latter, and only when there's a court order presented for the information. Yet it's not impossible the reality is the former, but then there's a range of possibilities concerning what kind of access the NSA has and no real method of finding out.

[brownjenkins]

I feel sorry for the guy tasked with reading through my thousands of posts here!

[Rían]

Aww, don't be so modest, brownie!

(your posts are delightful )

[The Gaffer]

Also not surprised, also annoyed that foreigners appear to be fair game. Though of course, no doubt our lot would do exactly the same if they could. In fact they probably are.

Corporations are required by law to deny any co-operation, so we should all read absolutely nothing into their denials. Their incentive for co-operating is being allowed to stay in business.

And no way the NSA would do this by the back door if they can get the companies to do it for them. If you think about it, this brings the companies "inside the tent", which creates a nice symbiosis.

Nice for the companies and the government anyway. I fully expect those companies are leveraging this goodwill in every way they can conceive of.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Also not surprised, also annoyed that foreigners appear to be fair game.

Seems kinda needlessly rude and discrimitory considering the otherwise decent number of homegrown terrorists they already have had... Oh wait, we're not American voters, they don't even have to bother lying to us in the first place.

Though of course, no doubt our lot would do ex actly the same if they could. In fact they probably are.

Indeed, ours have been salivating for a while now to be able to put fingerprints and other biometric data on our (mandatory and therefor expensive) ID's. You can bet which direction those prints will go as soon as they have them, apart from our pourly protected Belgian servers.

And it actually kinda would be alright with me if those things really were used only for fighting terrorism. But considering our government's track record... you can bet they will be used from everything to traffic tickets. Especially traffic tickets, our government seem quite obsessed with those. It's the one thing they consistently have put before people's privacy.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, this is true, and worth remembering.

I tend to think that government is, generally speaking, a good thing. People who always whine about government should go and live in Somalia and see how they like the libertarian paradise.

That said, it's only good if it's accountable. And that was the really egregious thing about all this terrorist legislation, it took away that accountability and hid it behind a flag. All to prevent something that poses less of a risk to society than road traffic.

Of course, the problem with giving powers to people in authority is that they willl tend to use them. We've had some pretty egregious examples here, e.g.

High profile examples of the inappropriate use of counter-terrorism powers include: preventing Walter Wolfgang from re-entering the Labour Party conference in Brighton in 2005, following his physical ejection for heckling the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw MP; and stopping and searching a protestor and a journalist at an arms fair at the Excel Centre in Docklands, East London in 2003.[158] Less well-known examples include the use of stop and search on demonstrators at military bases[159] or people wearing slogans on t-shirts.[160]

Source

IMO this is worse than PRISM, which at least seems to have some sort of democratic oversight.

The fact that they are doing it hand in hand with corporations tells me that the corporations are getting something out of it, and that is more worrying.

[mithrand1r]

Gaffer,

I would not exactly consider Somalia an example of a libertarian paradise. The warlords are more similar to different governments. Smaller in size and scope, but similar in many respects.

I tend to think less gov't better with the ideal being no gov't. Getting it to work in practice is the difficult part.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes, this is true, and worth remembering.

I tend to think that government is, generally speaking, a good thing. People who always whine about government should go and live in Somalia and see how they like the libertarian paradise.

That said, it's only good if it's accountable. And that was the really egregious thing about all this terrorist legislation, it took away that accountability and hid it behind a flag. All to prevent something that poses less of a risk to society than road traffic.

Of course, the problem with giving powers to people in authority is that they willl tend to use them. We've had some pretty egregious examples here, e.g.



Source

IMO this is worse than PRISM, which at least seems to have some sort of democratic oversight.

The fact that they are doing it hand in hand with corporations tells me that the corporations are getting something out of it, and that is more worrying.

[The Gaffer]

We can agree on that, anyway.

[Earniel]

We had a bit of a ruckus here revently when one of the biggest telecom operators (Belgacom, ex-government company, now partly privatised) discovered that they have been infected with malware for the last two years that has left their records open for foreign viewing. The company was not amused.

(Interesting tidbit is that microsoft, when asked for help, failed to find the malware, an independant firm had to get rid of it. Goes to show how 'well' microsoft knows to protect their own computers...)

The NSA seemed the likely culprit but now people are pointing to the Brits' secret service GCHQ. I admit, didn't see that one coming. Even Lizzie's folk aren't above some old-fashioned spying, I see. (Operation socialist? For real?)

But dude, this isn't fighting terrorism anymore. Launching cyberattacks against allied nations in peacetime to get data you probably would have gotten when asked? Man, now that's just low.