Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on June 16, 2013, 05:36:27 AM
-
So says the NSA.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
A number of interesting points are made throughout the article. This caught my attention Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.
Somehow I believe a lot more has to come out before we begin to see the bottom.
-
Read the article more carefully.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
The NSA didn't disclose anything. A congresscritter is requiring what he heard in a secret meeting, and what he heard is they -could- not that they did, or to what extent, or if that referred to calls specifically between two citizens inside the US.
-
And if what the Congressman said is true, are you ok with that?
Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.
Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."
Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked.
"I don't think so," Mueller replied.
"Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."
Are you ok with that?
-
Given what we know about how these agencies operate we can assume they have not overstepped their bounds and have been completely forthcoming.
-
And if what the Congressman said is true, are you ok with that?
Are you ok with that?
So how would you prevent that? Password protect it? Who controls the access? Again, the question becomes the people. People can abuse any system, so its either eliminate the capability (which is bad for security, and still allows abuse, since the concern about targeted collection isn't addressed) or...what?
Remember, if he did quote correctly, that means that the "analyst" in question has basically the same capability as a knowledgable tech at Verizon, level-3, ATT, google, a technical expert at a PD, etc.
If the data you are concerned about leaves your hands...ever...there is the potential for someone along the way to access and abuse it. Laws are put in place to prevent private folks from doing it, same as there are laws in place to deter IC community folks from doing it.
-
Laws are evidently in place and are routinely nullified by certain and varied justice department officials. Time will tell if Nadler is accurate in his representation. Meanwhile, I remain skeptical of official's protestation of innocent.
We are looking at the consequences of secret law and secret interpretation of said laws.
-
same as there are laws in place to deter IC community folks from doing it.
I'm not comforted by that fact.
-
I'm not comforted by that fact.
Then what is the point of the law? What would make you comfortable?
-
It's a short putt from "Listening in for National Security reasons" to "Listening in to Protect the Government." (from the people)
How about this. How many Terrorists has the government "caught"? I'm not talking about the guys subdued by passengers on the plane or the whack jobs the FBI "coaxes" into the Jihad business.
Simply a number, not how or why, but a real, no BS number.
Hell, they couldn't catch Hassan and he practically told them what he was going to do!!!
-
Given what we know about how these agencies operate we can assume they have not overstepped their bounds and have been completely forthcoming.
Absolutely. I'm happy with that. Nothing to see here, move along ... move along.
-
Laws are evidently in place and are routinely nullified by certain and varied justice department officials. Time will tell if Nadler is accurate in his representation. Meanwhile, I remain skeptical of official's protestation of innocent.
We are looking at the consequences of secret law and secret interpretation of said laws.
I believe that was confirmed later into the same article:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged this week that the agency's analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."
Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell indicated during a House Intelligence hearing in 2007 that the NSA's surveillance process involves "billions" of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database.
They can be accessed by an analyst who's part of the NSA's "workforce of thousands of people" who are "trained" annually in minimization procedures, he said. (McConnell, who had previously worked as the director of the NSA, is now vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton, Snowden's former employer.)
If it were "a U.S. person inside the United States, now that would stimulate the system to get a warrant," McConnell told the committee. "And that is how the process would work. Now, if you have foreign intelligence data, you publish it [inside the federal government]. Because it has foreign intelligence value."
McConnell said during a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants.
So the revolving door is still functional -- this guy goes from working for (heading) the NSA to being the head honcho of their preferred contractor. And this guy actually believes -- and testified -- that the President has authority to ignore and overrule the Constitution.
Scary stuff.
-
It's a short putt from "Listening in for National Security reasons" to "Listening in to Protect the Government." (from the people)
How about this. How many Terrorists has the government "caught"? I'm not talking about the guys subdued by passengers on the plane or the whack jobs the FBI "coaxes" into the Jihad business.
Simply a number, not how or why, but a real, no BS number.
Hell, they couldn't catch Hassan and he practically told them what he was going to do!!!
Let me modify my statement, it's a short putt from Protecting the United States to Protecting the United States Government.
And to clarify that: Country =/= Government.
-
Then what is the point of the law? What would make you comfortable?
Accountability would make me more comfortable. Just haven't seen a whole lot of it lately and if there isn't accountability in the State Department, IRS, Justice Department or even at the White House why should I have confidence that people in the NSA will be held accountable for their actions? Just having a law against something doesn't mean everybody is going to abide by that.
-
It's a short putt from "Listening in for National Security reasons" to "Listening in to Protect the Government." (from the people)
How about this. How many Terrorists has the government "caught"? I'm not talking about the guys subdued by passengers on the plane or the whack jobs the FBI "coaxes" into the Jihad business.
Simply a number, not how or why, but a real, no BS number.
Hell, they couldn't catch Hassan and he practically told them what he was going to do!!!
1. There is a saying in intelligence, "our successes are secret, our failures public". The reason you don't "spike the football" or even reveal there was a football to be spiked was that even confirming you stopped something discloses to the enemy that something they did resulted in mission failure, meaning they can adapt. This is fundamental. Not only that, you can't prove a negative, in other words, exactly what do you mean by stopped? Stopped the guy heading somewhere with a bomb? Stopped him going to get the bomb? Stopped the guy building the bomb? Stopped the guy selling the stuff to to the guy building the bomb for the guy who will carry the bomb? Success in intelligence is deeper than the failure, and almost impossible to point to. Or, in the words of a character in futurama...if you do it right, it won't look like you did anything at all.
Everything else is just the movies.
2. You are using Hassan, an American, who was radicalized by another American, and those emails were legally intercepted by the intelligence community, legally handed over to the FBI before the attack, and then (more than likely for political reasons) ignored or at the least not acted upon, as an example of...what? The very system you are against did its job, likely using the very techniques you oppose, and then the situation was not stopped because the law enforcement you effectively want to take the job failed due to the polo cal oversight you want to impose.
Not the best example dude.
-
There is a saying in intelligence, "our successes are secret, our failures public". The reason you don't "spike the football" or even reveal there was a football to be spiked was that even confirming you stopped something discloses to the enemy that something they did resulted in mission failure, meaning they can adapt. This is fundamental... Success in intelligence is deeper than the failure, and almost impossible to point to. Or, in the words of a character in futurama... if you do it right, it won't look like you did anything at all.
I had to look that up because it didnt quite seem to fit any of the characters. Here it is in context: :D
God Entity: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
God Entity: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Nicely done, BTW.
-
Horse Hockey.
There have been several different reports of the FBI arresting Achmed the Loser after jihading him up, selling him fake explosives, and then arresting him when he went to go try to do Bad Thingstm.
Hell, Napalitano was crowing about how "The System Worked" on Mr. Underwear Bomber, only after the plane's passengers dogpiled his ass.
And Hassan does make the point, he was using .gov computers and .gov e-mail, internet, etc. And still they missed it. Why, because we can't offend Muslims, but we can go after everyone else.
The point being that since they can't catch real terrorists *cough*Boston*cough*, they will begin to use the data/information against the REST of us. The point is that it even if it isn't (which I don't believe for one second), it will be abused. Which is precisely what the Founding Fathers warned against.
Just look at the TSA. Can't profile so in order to prove that they are not Middle Eastern men between the ages of 16 to 45 are pretty much given a pass, while grandma with her cane and underage girls get felt up by perverts.
It's wrong, I don't care what they say, it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. If they want to monitor comms outside the country, be my freakin' guest. But in side the US?
GET
A
WARRANT.
-
Horse Hockey.
There have been several different reports of the FBI arresting Achmed the Loser after jihading him up, selling him fake explosives, and then arresting him when he went to go try to do Bad Thingstm.
Hell, Napalitano was crowing about how "The System Worked" on Mr. Underwear Bomber, only after the plane's passengers dogpiled his ass.
And Hassan does make the point, he was using .gov computers and .gov e-mail, internet, etc. And still they missed it. Why, because we can't offend Muslims, but we can go after everyone else.
The point being that since they can't catch real terrorists *cough*Boston*cough*, they will begin to use the data/information against the REST of us. The point is that it even if it isn't (which I don't believe for one second), it will be abused. Which is precisely what the Founding Fathers warned against.
Just look at the TSA. Can't profile so in order to prove that they are not Middle Eastern men between the ages of 16 to 45 are pretty much given a pass, while grandma with her cane and underage girls get felt up by perverts.
It's wrong, I don't care what they say, it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. If they want to monitor comms outside the country, be my freakin' guest. But in side the US?
GET
A
WARRANT.
DID YOU NOT READ MY EARLIER POSTS?! For Christ's sake, YOU CAN'T SELECT OUT NON DOMESTIC TRAFFIC WITHOUT "MONITORING" DOMESTIC COMMS.
And how exactly do you get a warrant to get traffic without determining if the traffic is useful or even if its non-domestic? How does one do that? Oh wait, the f$&ing metadata, and establishing who is taking to who. On wait, I guess you think Lilly Tomlin is somewhere directing your packets and we can just ask her?
AND THEY DIDN'T MISS HASSAN, it was political pressure on FBI that did nothing with the results.
That's it, I'm pissed now, read my damn posts before regurgitating the same goddamn thing again and again.
I keep trying to make a point and you keep throwing out red herrings, strawmen, asking to prove a negative, begging the question, and about 20 other logical fallacies.
As for spiking a few footballs, did you not *expletive deleted*ing notice IT WASN'T THE INTEL FOLKS THAT DID THAT.
Jesus Christ with a jetpack.
Oh, and how's this:
GET
A
CLUE AS TO HOW MODERN COMMS WORK
Oh, and also go read your EULA...have you? Have you read the case law? The relevant DCI directives?
-
That's it, I'm pissed now, read my damn posts before regurgitating the same goddamn thing again and again.
I keep trying to make a point and you keep throwing out red herrings, strawmen, asking to prove a negative, begging the question, and about 20 other logical fallacies.
Whatever relevancy your posts might have is destroyed by your pissy, childish attitude.
-
As a .gov employee (at the county level), let me run through something here...
How many cell phones are there in the US? In 2009, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Hearing that there were over 270 million cell phone subscribers in the United States. I'm going to assume that number went up in the last 5 years, but let's go with that number. I have a phone (2 actually), and I probably average 5 calls a day, which I know is on the law end of cell phone users. For easy math, let's say 4 calls a day per phone. That puts the number at 1,080,000,000 calls a day. 45,000,000 calls an hour. Now, I bet they don't have 500 people total cleared for this work, but let's pretend they maintain a staff of 500 in the building, on the system, all the time. Each of them would have 90,000 calls to listen to each hour. 25 calls a second. Every day. All the time. Non-stop. And this doesn't address text messages, e-mails, or the other communication methods.
Sometimes, I think that we, as a people, give the government too much credit for what we believe they are capable of doing. The reality, I believe, is far less. I know, they probably have computer software that targets certain words or phrases which when used sets off a warning light on a monitor so someone starts listening. Lord knows I've probably said some things that set off a light or two. Do I think that they monitor things that they shouldn't? Yep. Do I worry about it? In the general sense, like I worry about military intervention in Syria. Do I worry about my personal calls being monitored? Kind of hope they do. Bore them to death.
-
As a .gov employee (at the county level), let me run through something here...
How many cell phones are there in the US? In 2009, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Hearing that there were over 270 million cell phone subscribers in the United States. I'm going to assume that number went up in the last 5 years, but let's go with that number. I have a phone (2 actually), and I probably average 5 calls a day, which I know is on the law end of cell phone users. For easy math, let's say 4 calls a day per phone. That puts the number at 1,080,000,000 calls a day. 45,000,000 calls an hour. Now, I bet they don't have 500 people total cleared for this work, but let's pretend they maintain a staff of 500 in the building, on the system, all the time. Each of them would have 90,000 calls to listen to each hour. 25 calls a second. Every day. All the time. Non-stop. And this doesn't address text messages, e-mails, or the other communication methods.
Sometimes, I think that we, as a people, give the government too much credit for what we believe they are capable of doing. The reality, I believe, is far less. I know, they probably have computer software that targets certain words or phrases which when used sets off a warning light on a monitor so someone starts listening. Lord knows I've probably said some things that set off a light or two. Do I think that they monitor things that they shouldn't? Yep. Do I worry about it? In the general sense, like I worry about military intervention in Syria. Do I worry about my personal calls being monitored? Kind of hope they do. Bore them to death.
Thing is, we're concerned that the government is logging who you've called, and who calls you - not necessarily the content of those calls. You can find out a lot if you know who talks to who and with what frequency; a whole social network diagram can be built with that information alone. And that information is comparatively easy for computer systems to log and analyze without human intervention.
Question: Is the address of all the postal mail I receive and send subject to warentless logging? How about through a private courier, like UPS?
-
Thing is, we're concerned that the government is logging who you've called, and who calls you - not necessarily the content of those calls. You can find out a lot if you know who talks to who and with what frequency; a whole social network diagram can be built with that information alone. And that information is comparatively easy for computer systems to log and analyze without human intervention.
Question: Is the address of all the postal mail I receive and send subject to warentless logging? How about through a private courier, like UPS?
That is how Giuliani cracked NYC organized crime. But, I hear he got warrants and included lots of skull-sweat.
-
And how exactly do you get a warrant to get traffic without determining if the traffic is useful or even if its non-domestic? How does one do that? Oh wait, the f$&ing metadata, and establishing who is taking to who. On wait, I guess you think Lilly Tomlin is somewhere directing your packets and we can just ask her?
Oh, I don't know, "we have followed John Q and his activities are suspicious, can we get a warrant"? How do you imagine people got warrants in the previous few centuries?
Oh, and also go read your EULA...have you? Have you read the case law? The relevant DCI directives?
You keep repeating these words. But they are actually irrelevant to our concerns.
-
Question: Is the address of all the postal mail I receive and send subject to warentless logging
since before your parents met
they are actually irrelevant to our concerns.
reality being irrelevant can be a problem if you intend to be taken seriously
-
Yep, you don't need humans to monitor each and every call. You only need a few to monitor what the computers come up with. And a few to update the software to key on whatever words/metadata you are now looking for.
And yes, I know it's "legal". Congress passed a law and made the telco's put the disclaimer in the EULA's. It doesn't make it right, moral, or constitutional.
And it seems to me that not every cell phone call made in any 3rd world shithole is routed through the US?
I remember when the 66th MI Brigade ran the Elephant Cage in Augsburg. I'm pretty sure they weren't monitoring comms in the US, so I think LP's in or near 3rd World shitholes of interest could pick-up lots of cell phone calls and text messages within those countries.
Same with internet comms. I'd bet not everything goes through the US. It might be "harder", but that doesn't mean impossible, and protecting civil liberties should be the ultimate and primary concern.
-
It might be "harder", but that doesn't mean impossible, and protecting civil liberties should be the ultimate and primary concern.
Unfortunately, government protecting itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is its primary concern. Any protection of the country as a whole, and its citizens, is strictly unintentional and likely undesired.
-
I seem to recall telling people that USSID 18 is no longer in effect whenever this subject would come up.
Example. (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25715.msg500212#msg500212)
But of course it's all just tin-foil until someone "important" does it. *sigh*
I believe that was confirmed later into the same article:
So the revolving door is still functional -- this guy goes from working for (heading) the NSA to being the head honcho of their preferred contractor. And this guy actually believes -- and testified -- that the President has authority to ignore and overrule the Constitution.
Scary stuff.
Nixon/Frost moment much?
For Christ's sake, YOU CAN'T SELECT OUT NON DOMESTIC TRAFFIC WITHOUT "MONITORING" DOMESTIC COMMS.
That isn't accurate.
-
Thing is, we're concerned that the government is logging who you've called, and who calls you - not necessarily the content of those calls. You can find out a lot if you know who talks to who and with what frequency; a whole social network diagram can be built with that information alone. And that information is comparatively easy for computer systems to log and analyze without human intervention.
Question: Is the address of all the postal mail I receive and send subject to warentless logging? How about through a private courier, like UPS?
The question that needs to be asked with respect to information like this is what expectation of privacy do you have for that information? With addresses, you write it o the outside of the envelope, put it in a mailbox, and several dozen people see it between your mailbox and the recipient's box.probably the same with UPS/FedEx, etc. You put it out for view, so your expectation of privacy is minimal. With phone numbers you dial, I'm not so sure. Because the system is automated, fewer people are involved. And, with billing the way it is now, with less emphasis put on the distance of the call (local vs. intrastate long distance vs. interstate long distance vs. international), there's less of a business reason to track this information. But, still, you are putting the information in someone else's hands when you dial a phone, in that you are telling someone (or a computer someone else is using) where to direct your call when you dial. I suspect the expectation of privacy for that set of numbers is also minimal.
-
The question that needs to be asked with respect to information like this is what expectation of privacy do you have for that information? With addresses, you write it o the outside of the envelope, put it in a mailbox, and several dozen people see it between your mailbox and the recipient's box.probably the same with UPS/FedEx, etc. You put it out for view, so your expectation of privacy is minimal.
Thats why those kind of places ship their products in plain brown boxes and envelopes with an innocuous sounding return address. ;)
-
The question that needs to be asked with respect to information like this is what expectation of privacy do you have for that information? With addresses, you write it o the outside of the envelope, put it in a mailbox, and several dozen people see it between your mailbox and the recipient's box.probably the same with UPS/FedEx, etc. You put it out for view, so your expectation of privacy is minimal. With phone numbers you dial, I'm not so sure. Because the system is automated, fewer people are involved. And, with billing the way it is now, with less emphasis put on the distance of the call (local vs. intrastate long distance vs. interstate long distance vs. international), there's less of a business reason to track this information. But, still, you are putting the information in someone else's hands when you dial a phone, in that you are telling someone (or a computer someone else is using) where to direct your call when you dial. I suspect the expectation of privacy for that set of numbers is also minimal.
Every time you leave the house you have no expectation of privacy. Shall we let the fed.gov attach GPS units to all privately owned vehicles and track everywhere you go all day? Would that be an issue for you, given that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy?
-
Shall we let the fed.gov attach GPS units to all privately owned vehicles and track everywhere you go all day?
Don't most new cars have some kind of onboard GPS already? Is there a current production cell phone that doesn't have GPS? Most people are already "tagged" all that's left is for another whistleblower to tell us that the .gov is already tracking our every move. If it can be done you can bet they are doing it.
And, we've been seeing talk for a while now of making them (GPS) mandatory in cars to be able to charge a "road use tax" by the mile.
-
Every time you leave the house you have no expectation of privacy. Shall we let the fed.gov attach GPS units to all privately owned vehicles and track everywhere you go all day? Would that be an issue for you, given that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy?
Good point. What the courts have ruled with respect to tech adhanvces is that using advanced technology that allows a person to go beyond what their normal senses would be able to accomplish (I can't recall the case...it was about using thermal imaging to scan houses looking for pot grows) requires a court authorization. I don't know how courts would rule with respect to phone numbers, because they are kind of in the middle between purely public and purely private.
Balog, when i was a prosecutor, I did assist cops in getting court orders for GPS devices on cars. So, if courts follow your logic, then it would require a court order to collect phone numbers. I'm just not sure where they would come down this issue...
-
I have the expectation that when I ship something UPS or Fedex that they won't break into the package and look to see what I'm shipping and to whom.
I have the expectation that when I use my phone that they simply use my metadata to bill me for usage and they don't turn around to notify my STBX that I've called my lawyer.
I have the expectation that when I use my Preferred Customer Card at the grocery store, that all I'll get is an e-mail recommending similar products and maybe a coupon, not that they'll restrict or limit what food I buy the next time I'm there. (Mayor Bloomberg.)
I do business with those companies with the expectation that they will only use my data/information for purposes associated with the operation of their business (billing/marketing) and not to turn it over to the .gov to have men with guns scrutinize my life.
That is my expectation. To have the .gov leave me alone.
-
I have the expectation that when I ship something UPS or Fedex that they won't break into the package and look to see what I'm shipping and to whom.
I have the expectation that when I use my phone that they simply use my metadata to bill me for usage and they don't turn around to notify my STBX that I've called my lawyer.
I have the expectation that when I use my Preferred Customer Card at the grocery store, that all I'll get is an e-mail recommending similar products and maybe a coupon, not that they'll restrict or limit what food I buy the next time I'm there. (Mayor Bloomberg.)
I do business with those companies with the expectation that they will only use my data/information for purposes associated with the operation of their business (billing/marketing) and not to turn it over to the .gov to have men with guns scrutinize my life.
That is my expectation. To have the .gov leave me alone.
My fault for speaking in lawyer talk. It's actually a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which means pretty much you have to look at it from an objective point of view. That said, I've always felt that mail, phoone calls, and the like sould be private. I just don't know if judges (other judges, tyhat is) would agree with me.
-
I have the expectation that when I ship something UPS or Fedex that they won't break into the package and look to see what I'm shipping and to whom.
I have the expectation that when I use my phone that they simply use my metadata to bill me for usage and they don't turn around to notify my STBX that I've called my lawyer.
I have the expectation that when I use my Preferred Customer Card at the grocery store, that all I'll get is an e-mail recommending similar products and maybe a coupon, not that they'll restrict or limit what food I buy the next time I'm there. (Mayor Bloomberg.)
I do business with those companies with the expectation that they will only use my data/information for purposes associated with the operation of their business (billing/marketing) and not to turn it over to the .gov to have men with guns scrutinize my life.
That is my expectation. To have the .gov leave me alone.
Mr. Problem, meet Mr. Nutshell.
-
Don't most new cars have some kind of onboard GPS already? Is there a current production cell phone that doesn't have GPS? Most people are already "tagged"
One more reason why I drive a ten-year old car and use a "dumb" cell phone (rarely) with no text capability.
I can still mail a latter that has no return address on the envelope. I can drop it in a mailbox in another city. Generally, although the USPS grumbles, they usually deliver it (as long as I have a correct address for the intended recipient. The next step may be that they'll make it illegal to mail a letter without prominently showing your correct return address on the outside of the envelope.
(Solution: I'll have my wife write it. Good luck scanning that, NSA. 24 hours later she can't read notes she herself wrote.)
-
One more reason why I drive a ten-year old car and use a "dumb" cell phone (rarely) with no text capability.
Because you don't want the NSA to track you? ???
Don't get me wrong, I have issues with the .gov surveillance/tracking. And i'd like to know as much as possible about how my .gov tracks me so that if needed I could drop them/it (or at least hinder it).
But on a day to day basis, pre-revolution, I really don't think that they get much from the info. It seems (to me) silly to deny yourself actual useful pieces of tech just because, at some point in the future, they might be used to track you doing something the .gov doesn't like. Everybody is welcome to their own risk assessment however.
-
This is why:
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
Just because your not part of "anything" you may have have associated with those who are. I'm sure the .gov "debrief" you will undergo with will be a most pleasant experience.
-
http://c4ss.org/content/19769
Think what you want of the source, I find the article to be a decent summary of the root of my own concerns with the present scandal.
-
http://c4ss.org/content/19769
Think what you want of the source, I find the article to be a decent summary of the root of my own concerns with the present scandal.
I agree.