2013 = 1984

[Woodruff]

Lol, and so it begins.. the media is always watching, and now the government will be tracking Americans.. brilliant job guys.. evidently you elected the right man.... (though I can't say you had much of an option on election day!)

PS-- ask phatscotty.. I have been on this 1984 = 2013 thing forever.

I was already there in the RFID thread and the Obamacare thread. thanks for continuing to talk about it. One of these days enough people will care, and then they will ask us "where were you in 2012?"

do you know why Ron Paul did not sign onto the articles of impeachment that Dennis Kucinich brought forth against George Bush in 2008?The time to stop this would have been then.

Impeaching Bush would not automatically repeal the repeal anything(neither did electing O), so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Obamacare wasn't passed until 2009, unless you are talking about something else

oops I am,I thought this was still about eavesdropping of Americans.

Well, you could try looking at the post you responded to, which is about RFID chipping.

This thread is about a lot of things going on right now that are Orwellian.

Aren't you the one that's always whining about others taking threads off-topic?

[Woodruff]

3. While everyone was busily losing their shpadoinkle on Twitter and the blogs, Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Apple all announced in separate statements that not only were they unaware of any PRISM program, but they also confirmed that there’s no way the government had infiltrated the privately-owned servers maintained by these companies.

These companies are all intelligent and tech-savvy enough to know that such a statement can only be a "hope" at best, rather than being definatory. This is pure salesmanship.

Hmm... Sure, the government didn't infiltrate their servers. The NSA simply asked for access and got it. PRISM is one of the many programs involving data mining by the NSA, so it can easily be the case that those companies were unaware of PRISM but were aware of their other similar programs, e.g. the Terrorism Surveillance Program (TSP) and those two other programs (can't find the article atm).

I'm not saying that JB is a liar, but his source and/or those companies are great at being misleading. Who knows, maybe JB rearranged his source and inadvertently spewed out something incorrect.

Allow me to underline the point of contention for me when I made my point above. They simply cannot know that. They can only hope that is the case.

[Juan_Bottom]

Show of hands, who here understands how hacking private servers and gaining unrestricted access works?

Congratulations if you said that it's actually quit difficult. Like, impossible to do.
The last time that anything named Google was hacked was 6 years ago, and that was by China, who is alleged to have the most sophisticated hacking program in the world. And all that happened then was that thousands of activist's email accounts were hacked into.
Google has some of the most secure servers in the world. So if they say that nobody has hacked into them, I believe them. You cannot hack into a giant corporation's billion-dollar servers without leaving a big greasy fingerprint.
Furthermore, these companies all issued separate, independent statements to say the exact same thing; nobody has hacked our servers. To assert otherwise is to claim that there is a conspiracy theory in which the NSA has such a sophisticated hacking system that they can go anywhere they want, completely undetected.
And if that is the case, then they don't need any programs like PRISM, do they? They wouldn't need to ask Google or Yahoo for anybody's personal information, they could just take it and nobody would know the difference.


Also, lets not forget that several of these companies have a history of telling governments to go F themselves. Google and Yahoo refused to censor the internet, and several of these companies made positive statements about net neutrality. They already have more money than God and control the entire internet infrastructure, so there's no reason for them to simply take orders from the NSA. The United State's government is powerless to shut them down. As Google said, they listen to why such-and-such agency is making a request, then they run it through their legal department. This is what you or I would do.

[Juan_Bottom]

China claims to have ‘mountains of evidence’ proving U.S. is hacking into their networks

I'll post this here to bolster my point. This story is about a week old now.
China and the US seem to frequently hack the crap out of each other, and they are just as frequently caught. So how is it that the US can't pull off a hack into these Chinese servers but has no problem hacking into every major corporation's servers here in the US?

How is it that they are only undetectable if they are attacking US citizen's? The answer is that the story was blown way out of proportion to sell papers.


How to get your FBI file.
http://www.getmyfbifile.com/

[Woodruff]

Show of hands, who here understands how hacking private servers and gaining unrestricted access works?
Congratulations if you said that it's actually quit difficult. Like, impossible to do.

I am well-versed in the methods used to hack private servers and gain unrestricted access to them. I was a highly classified network administrator in the military for quite a long time. My job was in defending these networks from exactly such intrusions. I would definitely suggest that you do not have my level of training. Certainly, the system administrators at Google and such do, but this is not a technical announcement as much as it is a face-saving announcement, because a technical announcement would not be made with such complete assurance.

Google has some of the most secure servers in the world. So if they say that nobody has hacked into them, I believe them.

I believe that they believe the statement also. It's simply impossible for them to guarantee such a thing.

You cannot hack into a giant corporation's billion-dollar servers without leaving a big greasy fingerprint.

That's simply not necessarily true. Is it likely? Of course. But that's a far different thing.

Furthermore, these companies all issued separate, independent statements to say the exact same thing; nobody has hacked our servers. To assert otherwise is to claim that there is a conspiracy theory in which the NSA has such a sophisticated hacking system that they can go anywhere they want, completely undetected.

I would actually support that statement, yes.

And if that is the case, then they don't need any programs like PRISM, do they? They wouldn't need to ask Google or Yahoo for anybody's personal information, they could just take it and nobody would know the difference.

It seems to me that you don't understand the difference between what a program like PRISM does and what a system of hacking can do. They provide very different levels and specifics of information.

Also, lets not forget that several of these companies have a history of telling governments to go F themselves. Google and Yahoo refused to censor the internet, and several of these companies made positive statements about net neutrality. They already have more money than God and control the entire internet infrastructure, so there's no reason for them to simply take orders from the NSA. The United State's government is powerless to shut them down. As Google said, they listen to why such-and-such agency is making a request, then they run it through their legal department. This is what you or I would do.

Again, I am not accusing them of necessarily being complicit. I am accusing them of making a statement that they simply cannot know the truth of.

[Woodruff]

China claims to have ‘mountains of evidence’ proving U.S. is hacking into their networks

I'll post this here to bolster my point. This story is about a week old now.
China and the US seem to frequently hack the crap out of each other, and they are just as frequently caught. So how is it that the US can't pull off a hack into these Chinese servers but has no problem hacking into every major corporation's servers here in the US?

How is it that they are only undetectable if they are attacking US citizen's? The answer is that the story was blown way out of proportion to sell papers.

Didn't you just claim that China has the most sophisticated hacking program in the world? Well hacking is both offensive and defensive in nature. So you're shocked that what you claim to be the most sophisticated hackers in the world are surprisingly good at stopping hackers? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here, regarding China.

[Juan_Bottom]

haha ya ok buddy

[Juan_Bottom]

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here, regarding China.

Why?
Because to be the best at something means that everyone else in the world sucks at it?
'Merica!



You're dodging facts in an effort to preserve a conspiracy theory. The Washington Post ran a story that is not supported by their own sources. That's it.
The NSA having super-hacking technology that our own experts cannot trace is absurd. These corporation's American experts are literally the people who work for, train, and consult to our own military experts. The idea that the NSA is hiding technology from the only people in the world who could create said technology is dumb. It would require a Marvel-Comic's archvillian from outer-space with future technology kind of explanation. There's just no way that Google would be opened up without knowing it.

It's a lot easier to accept the facts as we know them:

1)The Washington Post exaggerated an old story to push the fear factor
2)The whistleblower wasn't able to back up his claims, and the Corporations implicated each independently said that he was lying
3)The government isn't competent enough to cyber attack all of their own major web-based corporations when they can't attack anyone else in the world without being caught (China claims that 1.9 million computers were attacked in January and February, Iran and North Korea have also implicated the US in attacks)
4)The government doesn't need to attack their own web-based corporations, because they cooperate when there is a good reason
5)Our internet-based corporations are not going to allow anyone access to their servers & their proprietary technology. Our government can't stop other countrys from attacking them, how are they going to protect Yahoo's proprietary technology? No company gives up their secret methods for generating cash unless they are forced to.

Occam's Razer.

[rishaed]

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here, regarding China.

Why?
Because to be the best at something means that everyone else in the world sucks at it?
'Merica!



You're dodging facts in an effort to preserve a conspiracy theory. The Washington Post ran a story that is not supported by their own sources. That's it.
The NSA having super-hacking technology that our own experts cannot trace is absurd. These corporation's American experts are literally the people who work for, train, and consult to our own military experts. The idea that the NSA is hiding technology from the only people in the world who could create said technology is dumb. It would require a Marvel-Comic's archvillian from outer-space with future technology kind of explanation. There's just no way that Google would be opened up without knowing it.

It's a lot easier to accept the facts as we know them:

1)The Washington Post exaggerated an old story to push the fear factor
2)The whistleblower wasn't able to back up his claims, and the Corporations implicated each independently said that he was lying
3)The government isn't competent enough to cyber attack all of their own major web-based corporations when they can't attack anyone else in the world without being caught (China claims that 1.9 million computers were attacked in January and February, Iran and North Korea have also implicated the US in attacks)
4)The government doesn't need to attack their own web-based corporations, because they cooperate when there is a good reason
5)Our internet-based corporations are not going to allow anyone access to their servers & their proprietary technology. Our government can't stop other countrys from attacking them, how are they going to protect Yahoo's proprietary technology? No company gives up their secret methods for generating cash unless they are forced to.

Occam's Razer.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that the NSA could theoretically plant the technological informations agents it needed inside each company, which makes said Hacking/accessing from inside said database/servers (100x) Easier IMO. Less Firewalls/Proxies/unknown program's involved. Heck get one buried deep enough and he could be monitering the system without even having to hack it. This has been suspected of going on for appx. what 6 yrs?

[Juan_Bottom]

That's a grand-conspiracy theory again, for which there's no evidence. I imagine it would take decades to seek out the correct experts and buy them all off, hedging your bets that none of them would squeal.

The NSA has been doing this for a long time, yeah, since 911 and the Patriot act, presumably. But that doesn't mean that they are doing every scary thing that you can think of. That's just what sh*ty news organizations like the Washington Post want you to believe, so they can sell more bogus news. Pretty much all this is is a little bit of the truth mixed in with some scary lies. The whistleblower said that the NSA had "unrestricted access" to these servers, and could literally "watch you form a thought" as you typed. But now it turns out that he was lying. He took the truth of the PRISM program, and mixed it with his own lies to make it seem more real, and more terrifying. But it's bunk though.


"A lie that is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies."
-Alfred Lord Tennyson

[Woodruff]

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here, regarding China.

Why?
Because to be the best at something means that everyone else in the world sucks at it?
'Merica!

Huh? That's not even relevant to my point that you were claiming that China was "the best in the world!" while simultaneously decrying the NSA's capabilities because "even China is catching them!".

You're dodging facts in an effort to preserve a conspiracy theory.

I'm not dodging anything, although you seem to be trying very hard to.

The NSA having super-hacking technology that our own experts cannot trace is absurd.

Your first error is in presuming that someone's invasion is GOING to be traced. In order to trace it, you have to notice it first. I'm not at all suggesting that the NSA is so good that the folks at Google or whereever COULDN'T notice it, but I AM DEFINITELY saying that it's POSSIBLE for them to get past the good folks at Google.

These corporation's American experts are literally the people who work for, train, and consult to our own military experts.

I hate to make an appeal to authority, but I'm going to here. You really don't know what you're talking about. The military absolutely trains their own personnel. There are some folks who work for an consult for the military as contractors, and they're definitely not from Google or Yahoo.

The idea that the NSA is hiding technology from the only people in the world who could create said technology is dumb.

Did that make sense when you wrote it? Because it doesn't when I read it. Unless you believe that the folks at the NSA are simply incompetent and are definitely not on the bleeding edge of such technology.

It would require a Marvel-Comic's archvillian from outer-space with future technology kind of explanation. There's just no way that Google would be opened up without knowing it.

You're quite frankly speaking from ignorance here. Is Google extremely secure? I'm sure they are. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as completely secure, impenetrable or completely covered when it comes to computer systems on networks.

It's a lot easier to accept the facts as we know them:

Based on what you've said so far, I don't believe you know the facts.

[tzor]

That's really not true. Yes, they do want the Government as part of helping the poor certainly, but it's ludicrous to try to pretend they don't like charities and the like.

Unfortunately, facts generally tend to indicate otherwise. Most of the major people on the left are not ones who donate a significant portion of their income to charity.
Charitable Giving: Red States vs. Blue States

If you look at good examples of the left wing (Nanny Bloomberg is a good example) they try to prevent the average person from helping the poor, (You can't donate your food to the hungry; I don't know how much salt is in that food).

I've never heard such a thing before, to be honest.

Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless Shelters

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.
In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans...

...They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it — I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.

Too dumb to check: Bloomberg blocks food donations for homeless due to … salt and fat content

DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.

Being so close to NYC and what Bloomberg has done in his multiple terms I long for the days of Mayor Ed Koch.

Now he was a real good liberal.

[thegreekdog]

I can only assume no one read BBS's post wherein he posited that these companies gave the information to the government freely.

[Juan_Bottom]

I can only assume no one read BBS's post wherein he posited that these companies gave the information to the government freely.

Obviously I didn't, but
In Google's written statement they said that they consider each request separately, then they run it through their legal department before finally deciding to turn over specific information. The government wouldn't need to cyber-hack these people.

Unfortunately, facts generally tend to indicate otherwise. Most of the major people on the left are not ones who donate a significant portion of their income to charity.
Charitable Giving: Red States vs. Blue States

Image

Not to call bullsh*t, but I call bullsh*t.
There's two things here being ignored to form these numbers. The number one thing to me being that liberals vote to make the government help support the people, while Conservatives vote against that. So the blue-state governments do the work of charity's, and it's citizens support those programs through taxation instead of personal donations. And second, when you take out the religious donations, the NorthEast suddenly becomes the most charitable region in the US. So these Liberals give more of their money to personal charities. Also, just because you donate your money to a church charity or religious charity doesn't mean that the money is used for charity work. Particularly in both the Bible Belt and the Deep South, churches are very political in nature, and their charity is often tied to the religion of the one receiving help. IE, "we only support Baptists" or what have you.

Your first error is in presuming that someone's invasion is GOING to be traced. In order to trace it, you have to notice it first. I'm not at all suggesting that the NSA is so good that the folks at Google or whereever COULDN'T notice it, but I AM DEFINITELY saying that it's POSSIBLE for them to get past the good folks at Google.

That's a useless Agnostic stance. You might as well say that gravity can fail.
Google's own security forces say that the only way to hack into their servers without their knowledge is to gain physical access to them. And they are just one of a dozen companies denying that they've been hacked here. The idea that the shadow government can and has hacked all of them without anyone knowing is silly.

I hate to make an appeal to authority, but I'm going to here. You really don't know what you're talking about. The military absolutely trains their own personnel. There are some folks who work for an consult for the military as contractors, and they're definitely not from Google or Yahoo.

All of our military personnel's expertise comes from these companies. All of it. The freelance contractors have received their initial training from a virtual cornucopia of starting places, yeah, but in the end the experts have all at least worked for the big internet-based corporations. They do not stay in the military forever, they take the route Snowden took and become contractors. Even so, all of our expertise originates from the big Corporations.
China's own hacking program, such as it is, comes from personal training and consultation by IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and a few others. That is why it's so effective.

Did that make sense when you wrote it? Because it doesn't when I read it. Unless you believe that the folks at the NSA are simply incompetent and are definitely not on the bleeding edge of such technology.

The NSA subpena's Google's information because Google has the largest and broadest internet-based information gathering network in the world. They are the experts at this.

[rishaed]

That's a grand-conspiracy theory again, for which there's no evidence. I imagine it would take decades to seek out the correct experts and buy them all off, hedging your bets that none of them would squeal.

You don't buy them off, you plant them otherwise send your Intelligence agents in when a job opening for the basic position opens up then have them work their way up. . And non trained bought of programming experts, who are new to the idea of hide your tracks will get caught much faster than a trained agent.

The NSA has been doing this for a long time, yeah, since 911 and the Patriot act, presumably. But that doesn't mean that they are doing every scary thing that you can think of.

Its precisely that they've been around for a long time that they have worked out all the bugs when they do this stuff. You really think that they as an information based agency, are going to wait around for the CIA/FBI/(Insert other Agency) to say, "here have our info scraps!"

That's just what sh*ty news organizations like the Washington Post want you to believe, so they can sell more bogus news. Pretty much all this is is a little bit of the truth mixed in with some scary lies. The whistleblower said that the NSA had "unrestricted access" to these servers, and could literally "watch you form a thought" as you typed. But now it turns out that he was lying. He took the truth of the PRISM program, and mixed it with his own lies to make it seem more real, and more terrifying. But it's bunk though.

Source it. As in not from the President, in one of his speeches. This guy gave The Guardian a 75 slide Powerpoint about the PRISM program, and I'm more inclined to believe a person who has put just about everything on the line vs. the President currently. What's he going to get out of this? A little bit of cash? If that were so, he could have just stayed at the NSA. The Guardian doesn't pay much ya know? A life being monitered/hunted by security agencies? Yup. Revoked citizenship to the US? Yup. Publicity? Any good information expert can tell you that eventually you will be forgotten unless you keep doing things to maintain your publicity. This guy has much more to lose than he will ever gain from this.

"A lie that is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies."
-Alfred Lord Tennyson

The quote is quite true. However I think that you are putting blind faith in our government.

Heres a good adage to spice up your day.
"Power corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-Author unknown to me.

[Phatscotty]

try to imagine how much power and money can be gained from listening into people's private conversations. The world is virtually there for the taking. Think about it. inside information, home security passcodes, opportunities, not to mention information to blackmail people with and control them. The possibilities are endless.

No way can anyone be trusted with that

[thegreekdog]

I can only assume no one read BBS's post wherein he posited that these companies gave the information to the government freely.

Obviously I didn't, but
In Google's written statement they said that they consider each request separately, then they run it through their legal department before finally deciding to turn over specific information. The government wouldn't need to cyber-hack these people.

Yes, I know the government wouldn't need to cyber hack people or companies that gave up the information voluntarily.

You may not remember this, but others well... I had severe concerns with Google and Facebook having personal data on people because they could do bad things with that data and the government could do worse things. So if Google and Facebook give personal data to the government, whether they are forced to or do it voluntarily, I still have severe concerns.

So... I don't know shit about hacking. But I do know a little bit about privacy and when I say "no one read BBS's post" what I mean is, why do we care about semantics? Why do we care whether the data was mined or given voluntarily?

[Woodruff]

That's really not true. Yes, they do want the Government as part of helping the poor certainly, but it's ludicrous to try to pretend they don't like charities and the like.

Unfortunately, facts generally tend to indicate otherwise. Most of the major people on the left are not ones who donate a significant portion of their income to charity.
Charitable Giving: Red States vs. Blue States

You DO realize that chart doesn't at all show what you seem to be trying to imply it shows. You DO realize that chart does not separate "giving by the left" and "giving by the right". Your data is severely flawed, at best. Useless even, in my opinion.

If you look at good examples of the left wing (Nanny Bloomberg is a good example) they try to prevent the average person from helping the poor, (You can't donate your food to the hungry; I don't know how much salt is in that food).

I've never heard such a thing before, to be honest.

Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless Shelters

Do you really want to get into the whole "use one example to prove the whole" method? Because I've got plenty of conservatives whose perspectives you won't really care for...

[Woodruff]

Your first error is in presuming that someone's invasion is GOING to be traced. In order to trace it, you have to notice it first. I'm not at all suggesting that the NSA is so good that the folks at Google or whereever COULDN'T notice it, but I AM DEFINITELY saying that it's POSSIBLE for them to get past the good folks at Google.

That's a useless Agnostic stance. You might as well say that gravity can fail.

No, it's a stance of basic definitions.

Google's own security forces say that the only way to hack into their servers without their knowledge is to gain physical access to them.

Gosh, you don't suppose that it would be IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS to say such a thing, do you?

And they are just one of a dozen companies denying that they've been hacked here. The idea that the shadow government can and has hacked all of them without anyone knowing is silly.

As silly as their not wanting to admit to it, I'm sure. Because there wouldn't be concerns on their part for that happening to them, and having to admit to it, I'm sure.

I hate to make an appeal to authority, but I'm going to here. You really don't know what you're talking about. The military absolutely trains their own personnel. There are some folks who work for an consult for the military as contractors, and they're definitely not from Google or Yahoo.

All of our military personnel's expertise comes from these companies. All of it.

Well, you're just plain wrong. It's not even close, in fact. I don't know how else to put it. You're incorrect, and I've stated why previously.

[BigBallinStalin]

I can only assume no one read BBS's post wherein he posited that these companies gave the information to the government freely.

Well, probably not freely, but who knows--it's like the Jefferson-SexSlave debate. Either way, much of their conversation was pointless.

[Juan_Bottom]

I can only assume no one read BBS's post wherein he posited that these companies gave the information to the government freely.

Obviously I didn't, but
In Google's written statement they said that they consider each request separately, then they run it through their legal department before finally deciding to turn over specific information. The government wouldn't need to cyber-hack these people.

Yes, I know the government wouldn't need to cyber hack people or companies that gave up the information voluntarily.

You may not remember this, but others well... I had severe concerns with Google and Facebook having personal data on people because they could do bad things with that data and the government could do worse things. So if Google and Facebook give personal data to the government, whether they are forced to or do it voluntarily, I still have severe concerns.

So... I don't know shit about hacking. But I do know a little bit about privacy and when I say "no one read BBS's post" what I mean is, why do we care about semantics? Why do we care whether the data was mined or given voluntarily?

Well personally I find the story to be boring and silly. I mean-ah, we already knew about this in 2006, and Snowden has brought nothing new to the table, and has even outright lied. When I read other articles about this story, they always remain vague and uninformative, as if their authors don't understand what the program actually is or does. It's silly that our journalists are aggressively talking about "the outrage" but they aren't exactly sure what the outrage even is. They're pandering and feeding the paranoia of a spy state.

I don't even really mind what's going on. I'd stop it if I could, obviously, but nobody can stop this. The United states has been making manila files for millions of it's citizens since the 1940s. And it's very simple to get a manilla file for yourself, all you need to do is go to a political rally, or a protest, join a third party, run for city council and lose, etc. The only thing that's changed is that instead of this program being government-driven, now the people are driving it. Everyone has a Facebook account with all their likes and dislikes and political beliefs on it. The NSA doesn't need a database, they just need an internet connection. You don't have to vote to change the policies, you can just avoid websites that need to know everything about you.

You don't buy them off, you plant them otherwise send your Intelligence agents in when a job opening for the basic position opens up then have them work their way up. . And non trained bought of programming experts, who are new to the idea of hide your tracks will get caught much faster than a trained agent.

That's some serious paranoia.
And also a baseless conspiracy theory.

Its precisely that they've been around for a long time that they have worked out all the bugs when they do this stuff. You really think that they as an information based agency, are going to wait around for the CIA/FBI/(Insert other Agency) to say, "here have our info scraps!"

It's impossible to work out all the bugs when it comes to hacking. Cyber security changes daily. And just this week China announced that it has a mountain of evidence that the United States government has been trying to hack their systems.

Source it. As in not from the President, in one of his speeches. This guy gave The Guardian a 75 slide Powerpoint about the PRISM program, and I'm more inclined to believe a person who has put just about everything on the line vs. the President currently. What's he going to get out of this? A little bit of cash? If that were so, he could have just stayed at the NSA. The Guardian doesn't pay much ya know? A life being monitered/hunted by security agencies? Yup. Revoked citizenship to the US? Yup. Publicity? Any good information expert can tell you that eventually you will be forgotten unless you keep doing things to maintain your publicity. This guy has much more to lose than he will ever gain from this.

I did -

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-s ... naccurate/

3. While everyone was busily losing their shpadoinkle on Twitter and the blogs, Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Apple all announced in separate statements that not only were they unaware of any PRISM program, but they also confirmed that there’s no way the government had infiltrated the privately-owned servers maintained by these companies. Furthermore, Google wrote, “Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.” Google also described how it will occasionally and voluntarily hand over user data to the government, but only after it’s been vetted and scrutinized by Google’s legal team.

Yesterday Snowden said that 60,000 computers (or something similar) have been hacked by the US in China. But he gave no indications of how he came up with that magic number. I mean, think about this -
Snowden "leaked" the NSA's PRISM program to the Washington Post. It's the same story that broke in 2006, but with a few important new facts. BUT all of the new information has collapsed under scrutiny. The NSA does not have a hardline into the US' internet-based corporation's servers. The NSA can not watch you form your words as you type. So Snowden lied and added some flourishes to make the story sound scarier than it is.
And where did Snowden go to hide from the Feds? China. The same country US has been engaging in covert-cyber war with for two decades. He gave us no new information and he's hiding with our rival.

[rishaed]

You don't buy them off, you plant them otherwise send your Intelligence agents in when a job opening for the basic position opens up then have them work their way up. . And non trained bought off programming experts, who are new to the idea of hide your tracks will get caught much faster than a trained agent.

That's some serious paranoia.
And also a baseless conspiracy theory.

Not paranoia. LOGICAL THOUGHT. If they are going to run a program like PRISM, they are going to plan it and set it in motion years in advance. Or you just knock politely on the door and say, "Give me your docs, and I'll give you a few favors!"

Its precisely that they've been around for a long time that they have worked out all the bugs when they do this stuff. You really think that they as an information based agency, are going to wait around for the CIA/FBI/(Insert other Agency) to say, "here have our info scraps!"

It's impossible to work out all the bugs when it comes to hacking. Cyber security changes daily. And just this week China announced that it has a mountain of evidence that the United States government has been trying to hack their systems.

See above post. Actually read it? I'm not saying that they are hacking them. I'm saying that if, (a very big if) the corps are telling the truth, then the NSA probably planted a coupla agents in each company over the years to either feed them information/set up a micro-invisible program to run on the servers, connected with a secure broadbandwith (nontraceable of course) to transmit off site. Its not impossible, and it would be somewhat easy for an intelligence agent to do it.

[thegreekdog]

Well personally I find the story to be boring and silly. I mean-ah, we already knew about this in 2006, and Snowden has brought nothing new to the table, and has even outright lied. When I read other articles about this story, they always remain vague and uninformative, as if their authors don't understand what the program actually is or does. It's silly that our journalists are aggressively talking about "the outrage" but they aren't exactly sure what the outrage even is. They're pandering and feeding the paranoia of a spy state.

I don't even really mind what's going on. I'd stop it if I could, obviously, but nobody can stop this. The United states has been making manila files for millions of it's citizens since the 1940s. And it's very simple to get a manilla file for yourself, all you need to do is go to a political rally, or a protest, join a third party, run for city council and lose, etc. The only thing that's changed is that instead of this program being government-driven, now the people are driving it. Everyone has a Facebook account with all their likes and dislikes and political beliefs on it. The NSA doesn't need a database, they just need an internet connection. You don't have to vote to change the policies, you can just avoid websites that need to know everything about you.

Your post confuses me. On the one hand, you sound like your apathetic. On the other hand, you sound like you do care about the issue, but are supportive of the government. And on still another hand, you sound like you care about the issue, but are not supportive of the government.

I know the vast majority of people who care about this issue are doing it for partisan reasons and if their guy was in power, they would be supportive of the policies. On the other hand, a lot of the defenders of this policy are doing it for partisan reasons and if the other guy was in power, they would be flipping out. And the media is capitalizing on dollars available to report on this story.

From my perspective, any light that can be shed or any partisan moron who will realize that this is and has been and will continue to be an important issue, and that the issue is not a partisan one is a step in the right direction.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well personally I find the story to be boring and silly. I mean-ah, we already knew about this in 2006, and Snowden has brought nothing new to the table, and has even outright lied. When I read other articles about this story, they always remain vague and uninformative, as if their authors don't understand what the program actually is or does. It's silly that our journalists are aggressively talking about "the outrage" but they aren't exactly sure what the outrage even is. They're pandering and feeding the paranoia of a spy state.

I don't even really mind what's going on. I'd stop it if I could, obviously, but nobody can stop this. The United states has been making manila files for millions of it's citizens since the 1940s. And it's very simple to get a manilla file for yourself, all you need to do is go to a political rally, or a protest, join a third party, run for city council and lose, etc. The only thing that's changed is that instead of this program being government-driven, now the people are driving it. Everyone has a Facebook account with all their likes and dislikes and political beliefs on it. The NSA doesn't need a database, they just need an internet connection. You don't have to vote to change the policies, you can just avoid websites that need to know everything about you.

Your post confuses me. On the one hand, you sound like your apathetic. On the other hand, you sound like you do care about the issue, but are supportive of the government. And on still another hand, you sound like you care about the issue, but are not supportive of the government.

I know the vast majority of people who care about this issue are doing it for partisan reasons and if their guy was in power, they would be supportive of the policies. On the other hand, a lot of the defenders of this policy are doing it for partisan reasons and if the other guy was in power, they would be flipping out. And the media is capitalizing on dollars available to report on this story.

From my perspective, any light that can be shed or any partisan moron who will realize that this is and has been and will continue to be an important issue, and that the issue is not a partisan one is a step in the right direction.

That would be about... 10% of the US electorate? Let's be generous: Maybe 20%?

In my opinion, the lack of education/being informed, the ever-expanding complexity of institutions and social relations, and further government centralization are the main avenues which will explain a decline/stagnation* of the US (economically and politically).

*Changes in technology and the markets may be able to continue the heavy lifting. If successful, then the consequences of the above might not matter.**

**We actually see this today. With such great opportunity costs, many people in the "developed countries"/1st world countries have a hard time justifying going out to the streets to protest, becoming more involved in politics--beyond voting, etc. "Conditioning" is another word to describe this.

[oVo]

A NSA agent walks into a bar and the bar tender says,
"Hey man, want to hear a new joke?" To which the
NSA guy replies, "No thanks, already heard it."

The ad banner at the top of the page just said
2 People are spying on you!
want to know who? I had to laugh.