U.S. is spying on its citizens and others

[Topaz]

I just finished reading a very interesting story about NSA and the headquarters down in Texas and how people around the area couldn't open their garage doors because the NSA was on the same wavelength as the door openers and then that open to this story of how deep NSA monitoring goes. Doesn't this forum come out of Texas??? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-nsa-uses-powerful-toolbox-in-effort-to-spy-on-global-networks-a-940969.html

Edited December 30, 2013 by Charles Anthony
fixed code in link

[dre]

Me: It's a much different thing to say 'they're selling your data' and 'they're aggregating your data to sell'.

You: Actually, it's not different.

Those are different things. If they're not different to you, then it's just further proof that you and I speak two vastly forms of English: your general "everything is everything" English, and my version that is quite a measure more precise. You see, even when I'm convinced of your argument it's impossible for me to get clear facts from you. Thanks for pointing this out, but I will just go elsewhere for information on what is happening.

Exactly. Because you're angry, or afraid, or however you'd like to describe it - it clouds your ability to be precise, and therefore to get a warning out. Kind of like being unable to scream in a nightmare; this appears to be your situation with regards to this topic.

Anyway, I do thank you for pointing this out. I think I will be dropping my Bell subscriptions now.

People having to drop their subscriptions is not enough.

It should be damn clear now to everyone, that the laws protecting our privacy are not working as designed, and need to be greatly strengthened. Private companies should be able to share your information with others, and the government shouldnt have access to anything without a court order.

The pathetic and flimsy arguments for all this intrusion need to be seen for what they are.

Edited December 30, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/12/31/nsa-has-complete-access-to-your-iphone-leaked-docs-show/?intcmp=features

NSA access to iPhones.

[Michael Hardner]

It should be damn clear now to everyone, that the laws protecting our privacy are not working as designed, and need to be greatly strengthened. Private companies should be able to share your information with others, and the government shouldnt have access to anything without a court order.

You agree to this in your contract with them. They won't be passing any laws to restrict your ability to make such an agreement with a 3rd party.

The pathetic and flimsy arguments for all this intrusion need to be seen for what they are.

They want to make money - how is that flimsy ? If you don't want to do it then don't sign up with them.

[GostHacked]

They want to make money - how is that flimsy ? If you don't want to do it then don't sign up with them.

Try to find a company that provides a service in which they are NOT selling your data. I am not talking about small mom and pop stores (if there are any left) Rogers is no different. Your choices will be drastically reduced. Or you may have no choice at all.

[Michael Hardner]

Try to find a company that provides a service in which they are NOT selling your data. I am not talking about small mom and pop stores (if there are any left) Rogers is no different. Your choices will be drastically reduced. Or you may have no choice at all.

Then what we have here is a market opportunity, I guess. Or I have no choice...

[dre]

You agree to this in your contract with them. They won't be passing any laws to restrict your ability to make such an agreement with a 3rd party.

They want to make money - how is that flimsy ? If you don't want to do it then don't sign up with them.

They can nest whatever they want a huge contract nobody reads. And since all the major telecoms do the same thing there no real choice. Personal information should be treated like medical records are in the US and EU. Loop up "safe harbor" or "hippa".

Corporations should not be able to trick people into giving up their charter rights by sneaking in a piece of fine print into a TOU with 5000 words, any more than they should be allowed to have "if youre black you have to pay more".

What we need is a clear ruling on who all this intellectual property belongs to. If I write a song and people share it on the internet its a crime. Its theft. If I write an email with the exact same words in it why shouldnt it be subject to the same protection?

And your argument regarding "you signed a contract" is flimsy. If thats the case then a women or a black person could be subject to discriminatory treatment because they clicked the OK button after being shown the first page of a 20 page TOU. Thats just not the way things should work in a free society.

If you really WANT to turn over your intellectual property to a third party, then you SHOULD have the right to do so. But it should be made crystal clear and it isnt now. After the normal TOU is displayed when you sign up for service you should be shown a very direct message. "Do you want us to play fast and loose with your data and give it to the government if they ask for it, and sell it to third parties?" And you should have the legal right to opt out.

THAT is the real question here. If I say some words on my phone whos intellectual property are they? THey should be mine? If I write a song then email it to someone whos intellectual property is that? Is it mine? Saying that Bell can freely distribute youre property is no different than saying that NAPSTER can.

And thats what the issue is here. Should the ownership of intellectual property be reassigned based on a medium that you might use to transmit it? If I send a song or a poem to someone in the mail should the postal service now own it and have the right to redistribute it? If I write a song and send a copy of it to a friend by courier should the department of highways own it?

The answer is it is YOURS. If you write a song or a poem, or an email, that is a product of your mind. It is your intellectual property.

You agree to this in your contract with them. They won't be passing any laws to restrict your ability to make such an agreement with a 3rd party.

Why? Why shouldnt the government be involved in enforcing private property rights? They do that all the time. Why would it NOT be a good idea for the government to pass laws forcing private property rights to be respected? How would it damage society if these rights were protected? And why should a poem or song be treated differently in the intellectual property domain than an email or phonecall?

Edited January 1, 2014 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Corporations should not be able to trick people into giving up their charter rights by sneaking in a piece of fine print into a TOU with 5000 words, any more than they should be allowed to have "if youre black you have to pay more".

Absolutely - the U.S. is ahead of Canada in this regard if you have ever rented a car and seen one of the written contracts mandated by law. They're very clear.

What we need is a clear ruling on who all this intellectual property belongs to. If I write a song and people share it on the internet its a crime. Its theft. If I write an email with the exact same words in it why shouldnt it be subject to the same protection?

Right, but as I pointed out you did sign it away.

The way it works is this: You can't legally sign away rights that are constitutionally yours. You can't legally sign yourself into slavery for example. But if you choose to sell your intellectual property then that's your choice.

Why? Why shouldnt the government be involved in enforcing private property rights? They do that all the time. Why would it NOT be a good idea for the government to pass laws forcing private property rights to be respected? How would it damage society if these rights were protected? And why should a poem or song be treated differently in the intellectual property domain than an email or phonecall?

I didn't say 'enforce', I said 'restrict' as in "you CAN'T sell the right to aggregate your search data". I agree with what you wrote about clarity, as well as generally on this subject.

[GostHacked]

A company should be able to make money off me by paying for their service. But I draw the line where they sell my data to another party, to simply make money. Who needs to hack these entities when you can pay a few bucks for all the info.

They make money off you from the service, and then by selling your information. Not all on the up and up. How am I to guarantee my privacy since the companies that we deal with do not value our privacy?

[Michael Hardner]

A company should be able to make money off me by paying for their service. But I draw the line where they sell my data to another party, to simply make money.

But you're agreeing to this as part of your deal.

I could understand if you wanted to make a rule requiring opt-outs but it sounds like you want to make it illegal for me to give information to my service provider if I WANT to.

Anyway, we've discussed this one to death - I think I generally agree with the prevailing sentiment on the thread.

[GostHacked]

But you're agreeing to this as part of your deal.

You mentioned you cannot sign yourself into slavery. Pay taxes?

I could understand if you wanted to make a rule requiring opt-outs but it sounds like you want to make it illegal for me to give information to my service provider if I WANT to.

If you want to, then there is no problem. But how many understand that? And when they sell your data, do you even know what kind of data they are selling to others about you?

Opt-out should be by default. Give people a choice if they want to opt in. We've seen the danger in that with Facebook and their services where it was opt-in by default, peeving a whole bunch of people off. This is a mistake they have made several times and vowed to correct that for new services. Good thing I don't use Facebook. That is a service you DON'T pay for and Facebook makes money off you by ads and selling your data. Much more personal than what the telecom company has.

Anyway, we've discussed this one to death - I think I generally agree with the prevailing sentiment on the thread.

Slowly you will be able to see this with other services you pay for. In any case Mike, I will take it!

[Michael Hardner]

You mentioned you cannot sign yourself into slavery. Pay taxes?

You will become a better poster when you give up this kind of childish hyperbole.

If you want to, then there is no problem. But how many understand that?

Yes, we covered this above.

[GostHacked]

You will become a better poster when you give up this kind of childish hyperbole.

Might be my emotions getting in the way again, right Forum Facilitator?

[Shady]

Why would the government detain you and for what suspicious activity?

I don't know, maybe terrorism. Whatever they'd like. The point is, they have much more authority and can destroy your life in a way Google couldn't dream of, not has the authority to do.

*edit*

Forgot the know in I don't know.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

Might be my emotions getting in the way again, right Forum Facilitator?

If you really believe that taxation is the same thing as slavery, then I don't know how to facilitate that discussion. I can only step back from it, which I have been trying to do on this thread anyway.

[GostHacked]

If you really believe that taxation is the same thing as slavery, then I don't know how to facilitate that discussion. I can only step back from it, which I have been trying to do on this thread anyway.

You either step away or you don't. Choice is yours. There is no try.

[kimmy]

I don't, maybe terrorism. Whatever they'd like. The point is, they have much more authority and can destroy your life in a way Google couldn't dream of, not has the authority to do.

I find myself in the strange position of supporting Shady.

Google uses their insidious powers to target me with ads for stuff that I'm already shopping for. Oooh. Scary.

Meanwhile, the government can justify whatever it does in the name of "fighting terrorism!" and they've shown they're willing to define "terrorism" in increasingly broad ways to use these new powers. I provided examples elsewhere of states where exposing animal rights abuses by factory farms and feedlots is now classified as an act of terrorism. And how TransCanada Pipelines is working with state and local law enforcement agencies to show how to use laws that were designed to fight terrorism can be used to suppress anti-pipeline protestors (and I don't care whether you agree with pipeline protestors or not, that's beside the point. Anti terror laws were never intended to be used to suppress peaceful protest.) And last year we learned about how information about non-terror activities that turns up during NSA's business can be passed along from NSA to other law-enforcement agencies.

And we saw how little the assurances of "accountability" and "oversight" actually mean. Despite assurances that the amount of oversight made it impossible, we now have documented cases of NSA operators using these surveillance tools to cyber-stalk their ex-girlfriends. And we now know that the court oversight that was supposed to prevent abuses lags months behind the NSA's programs. And we know that they can get authorizations using the broadest terms, to the point that authorization is essentially meaningless. And we saw that despite the assurance that Congress oversees everything, we had the NSA's representatives lying to Congress about their activities.

-k

[GostHacked]

Google has changed again.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/gmail-privacy-concerns-flagged-over-new-feature-1.2491370

Expect a crap load of spam in your inbox from people you don't know.

A new feature in Google Inc's Gmail will result in some users receiving messages from people with whom they have not shared their email addresses, raising concerns among some privacy advocates.

The change, which Google announced on Thursday, broadens the list of contacts available to Gmail users so it includes both the email addresses of their existing contacts, as well as the names of people on the Google+ social network. As a result, a person can send an email directly to friends, and strangers, who use Google+.

I check my Google+ page now and then and a lot of it is filled with spam or stuff that I don't care about. Anything I don't want I mark as spam. Going to be doing a lot more of that I think.

[Michael Hardner]

I find myself in the strange position of supporting Shady.

I find myself in the strange position of changing my mind on this.

Meanwhile, the government can justify whatever it does in the name of "fighting terrorism!" and they've shown they're willing to define "terrorism" in increasingly broad ways to use these new powers. I provided examples elsewhere of states where exposing animal rights abuses by factory farms and feedlots is now classified as an act of terrorism. And how TransCanada Pipelines is working with state and local law enforcement agencies to show how to use laws that were designed to fight terrorism can be used to suppress anti-pipeline protestors (and I don't care whether you agree with pipeline protestors or not, that's beside the point. Anti terror laws were never intended to be used to suppress peaceful protest.) And last year we learned about how information about non-terror activities that turns up during NSA's business can be passed along from NSA to other law-enforcement agencies.

Keeping in mind that the trade-off is ostensibly enhanced monitoring vs unsubstantiated promise of more security, I believe that interference with the right to assemble, and free speech is more than I have bargained for up until now.

Can you provide me some links for the anti-pipeline and animal welfare examples ?

[Rue]

You either step away or you don't. Choice is yours. There is no try.

Hang on Ghost seriously. You lost me. I was following you 2 but I did not get the crack on taxes. You and I disagree on anything Middle East but surely you agree some taxes are necessary for an organized state?

I do agree with all your comments on privacy for that that is worth.

Lol unless you want to be the moderator don't take a shot at U KNOW WHO he might let you take over.

Its a stinky job and someone has to do it like we have to pay taxes.

Which brings me back to the spying. No I do not like it. No I don't like it at all. Sure I worry about it being abused but does anyone think it would be possible in this day and age particularly in a country the size of the US in terms of both population and economy not to have government engaging in intelligence?

Isn't it naive to think countries should not engage in it? every police force has an intelligence unit. Every business has intelligence units only sometimes they are called risk managers or maybe market analysts. Virtually any organization that competes with another has some sort of intelligence operation.

My concern is not whether intelligence must exist, but whether it is accountable for mistakes and abusive conduct. Intelligence is not the issue, being accountable for mistakes or abusive practice I think is the issue which is sort fo what one poster already said.

All countries spy on their citizens and others if for no reason to assist their businesses remain competitive.

When the leaks came out about spying have you ever thought to ask yourself-whether you can trust the info from those leaks? How do you know they were not misinformation deliberately fed by the US? Lol you can't know. You may never know.

I say, the US and every country in the world will continue to engage in intelligence if for no other reason they need to protect their financial interests and security interests. To do otherwise would be sheer insanity.

Just imagine the amount of intelligence Putin is now asking for to assist him with his olympics, this the same man posing as Mr. Righteous and housing a leaking piss pot of a man whose sole claim to fame was leaking information that gave Russia and China an advantage now and will enable them to do the very same thing this leaking piss pot criticized the US for. No thanks. You want to leak, leak equally or not at all because the selective leaks have only helped some of the worst government abusing spies not helped we civilians.

Now Mr. Putin, you think he would turn down US intelligence on any potential terror attacks in Russia in the coming days?

As for Michael Harder, I suspect he is an operative for the Seychelles Islands. . More leaks to come.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Rue

[kimmy]

Can you provide me some links for the anti-pipeline and animal welfare examples ?

Here is a message from earlier in this thread where I provided links.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Here is a message from earlier in this thread where I provided links.

-k

Ok - that took a long time to review. I'm more aware of these issues, so thank you.

Consider new laws being promoted by ALEC and considered in a number of US states that declare filming animal cruelty at factory farms to be an act of eco-terrorism and a matter of Homeland Security.

The document linked wasn't new - it was from 2003. ALEC is a conservative lobby group that I had never heard of before.

On Friday there was a news item where the Deputy Director of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation informs a citizen that complaining about water quality could be an act of terrorism.

From the description of that meeting, it seems like everyone was shocked by the admission and without the closing piece on this, ie. the forthcoming 'clarification of his remarks' that his employers promised, I'm not sure what this is.

TransCanada Pipeline is apparently collaborating with law enforcement authorities in several US states to look into ways of pursuing Keystone XL protestors as terrorists.

I read the slides linked and I agree that acts of destruction of infrastructure can be labelled 'terrorism'.

I thought more about this, and considered some past behaviors of police agencies in infiltrating protest groups and thwarting them at the 'freedom of expression' level, and I agree that monitoring will give these agencies another tool with which they can abuse power. Furthermore, I now think that this is a probable result.

[GostHacked]

Hang on Ghost seriously. You lost me. I was following you 2 but I did not get the crack on taxes. You and I disagree on anything Middle East but surely you agree some taxes are necessary for an organized state?

That response was for Mike. I was not the one dragging him back into the thread, he chose to reply on his own accord. When anyone replies, it is on our own accord.

I do agree with all your comments on privacy for that that is worth.

I think most would. But that is obviously not the case, or these discussions would not even exist.

Lol unless you want to be the moderator don't take a shot at U KNOW WHO he might let you take over.

I'll always challenge moderators and facilitators if the situation warrants it.

Isn't it naive to think countries should not engage in it? every police force has an intelligence unit. Every business has intelligence units only sometimes they are called risk managers or maybe market analysts. Virtually any organization that competes with another has some sort of intelligence operation.

My concern is not whether intelligence must exist, but whether it is accountable for mistakes and abusive conduct. Intelligence is not the issue, being accountable for mistakes or abusive practice I think is the issue which is sort fo what one poster already said.

That is the real issue. The accountability. I don't buy that

All countries spy on their citizens and others if for no reason to assist their businesses remain competitive.

When the leaks came out about spying have you ever thought to ask yourself-whether you can trust the info from those leaks? How do you know they were not misinformation deliberately fed by the US? Lol you can't know. You may never know.

That was one of my suspicions I put forth in one of the Snowden threads. It's a possibility. And if that is the case, then we see first hand the government using psychological techniques to dilute and misdirect the conversation. I am not sure if that is the case, but would not surprise me one bit. Anonymous works the same way, psy-ops.

say, the US and every country in the world will continue to engage in intelligence if for no other reason they need to protect their financial interests and security interests. To do otherwise would be sheer insanity.

But they gamed the financial system. The government helped the financial sector to assist with that.

Just imagine the amount of intelligence Putin is now asking for to assist him with his olympics, this the same man posing as Mr. Righteous and housing a leaking piss pot of a man whose sole claim to fame was leaking information that gave Russia and China an advantage now and will enable them to do the very same thing this leaking piss pot criticized the US for. No thanks. You want to leak, leak equally or not at all because the selective leaks have only helped some of the worst government abusing spies not helped we civilians.

Now Mr. Putin, you think he would turn down US intelligence on any potential terror attacks in Russia in the coming days?

Thing is, we know what to expect from an ex KGB member like Putin. Do you know what you expect from Obama? So far all expectations have been quite disappointing. If a leaker from any other country sought asylum in the USA, that person would be treated as a hero. And when presented with an opportunity like this, Russia will want to get everything they can out of him. That is expected. Why would people be surprised about that?

So what you can expect is that a 'Snowden' of any country would be treated with hostility by that country, and would be treated as a hero abroad.

Edited January 11, 2014 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Here is a good explanation on how the NSA was able to hack and read emails.

[Moonlight Graham]

Snowden has brought Obama and the US intelligence community to its knees:

NSA spying: Obama announces limits on surveillance program. Orders end of spying on friendly leaders; proposed reforms more sweeping than expected.

U.S. President Barack Obama is calling for ending the government's control of phone data from hundreds of millions of Americans, and he promises that "we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies."

The president said Friday he will end the program "as it currently exists." He called for extending some privacy protections to foreign citizens whose communications are scooped up by the U.S.

The moves are more sweeping than many U.S. officials had been anticipating.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nsa-spying-obama-announces-limits-on-surveillance-program-1.2500186

Every member of Congress, POTUS, or judge who voted for, non-vetoed, or legally upheld the PATRIOT Act should be considered an enemy of the state in the US, but of course Mr. Snowden is only thought as such. The NSA's PRISM program is covert and information warfare against citizens of every sovereign country spied upon and should be deemed as such. The US government just got pwned by the little guy, AND I LOVE IT!